| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Many complain about the divisiveness that has become the political landscape as of late. Many place the blame on one party or the other. One news network or another. The problem isn't the result of which party affiliation you belong to. Blaming the two party (or five party or seven party) system is simply misguided. The problem is that we, as a people, have abandoned the Constitution. The aim of the framers was to create the absolute minimum central government possible. The goal was to place the largest component of governance with the individual. If more government was needed, it would be created locally, closest to the people. The framers, having come off the recent catalyst of "no taxation without representation", sought to create the maximum representation locally with the distant representation having very limited powers. These limited powers were created under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There were 18 enumerated powers: To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Article 5 specified the means and method for adding additional powers as needed. When the Constitution is followed, Party is irrelevant. When the Constitution is undermined, sidelined, abandoned, party becomes critical. You cold be the most left leaning or right leaning candidate you wanted to be, but you'd be powerless to implement your political beliefs if they were not specifically provided for under Article 1, Section 8 or following Amendment. We need to return to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. The alternative is a complete destruction of the Constitution. The 2010 elections are not a referendum on Congress, Obama, unemployment, the economy, or even Obamacare. The 2010 elections are a referendum on the Constitution. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
now now, you certainly cant require your representatives to follow the constitution ! theres no provision for bribery, lies, graft, bail outs, ear marks or collusion. its like suggesting they dont vote themselves a raise. Scandalous | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There's no need for term limits with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. The trough just isn't big enough to compete with the private sector. When one can become outrageously wealthy simply by being publicly elected, the system is FUBAR. | ||
| Eaton_corners |
Were we to depend on Washington to tell us when to sow and when to reap; we would soon become hungry. Thomas Jefferson As was suggested by someone here on the BadWeb, I just finished reading "The 5000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen. I recommend it. | ||
| Sifo |
+1 on The 5000 Year Leap. After all the references to Alexis de Tocqueville in that book I finally read Democracy in America. I read the first half in the spring and set it aside. I read the second half late summer. There's a lot I disagree with in that second half, but it was a very interesting read. I could see a lot of parallels to today's political arguments being used by de Tocqueville. | ||
| Buellkowski |
How does the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution view constitutional amendments? | ||
| Sifo |
The constitution provided for the amendment process. It's an amazing document. I'm very disappointed that so many people, especially our leaders don't want to follow it. That will be the failing of our country. | ||
| Buellkowski |
FB also forgot the first enumerated power in Article 1 Section 8 (Taxing & Spending Clause): "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I didn't forget anything. Congress may tax but what they spend those tax revenues on is limited. There are NO open ended powers contained anywhere in the Constitution. Buellkowsky, how does Obamacare jive with the 13th Amendment? How does the 35 state 10th Amendment fight jive with Obamacare? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Are you inferring that the Tax & Spend Clause is limited only to Congressional activities enumerated in the rest of Section 8? If so, I'm not certain that's a proper reading of the Section. Back to my comment about amendments. Why complain about constitutional interpretation when the mechanism exists to remove ambiguity? | ||
| Strokizator |
As the delegates of the constitutional convention left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?” With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It appears easier said than done. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Are you inferring that the Tax & Spend Clause is limited only to Congressional activities enumerated in the rest of Section 8? If so, I'm not certain that's a proper reading of the Section. The ability to tax is open ended. The items on which those collected taxes can be spent are not. There are limited items of purview for the Federal Government with the remainder being reserved specifically to the states under the 10th Amendment. The framers were not providing 17 suggestions. Back to my comment about amendments. Why complain about constitutional interpretation when the mechanism exists to remove ambiguity? The Amendment process provided for under the 5th Amendment is intentionally cumbersome. This is primarily why there was a concerted effort to abandon the Amendment process in favor of judicial activism. If you can't win the game, alter the referees so that they call it in your favor. See this tortured logic. Pay close attention to the comments on judiciary: How does Obamacare jive with the 13th Amendment: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. | ||
| Blake |
The General Welfare means for all Americans in general. Obamacare provides health insurance for a small minority at the forced expense of others, meaning the the forced detriment of others. It is theft, nothing more, nothing less. It is blatantly unconstitutional. Freedom to decide philanthropic duty has been stolen by the moochers and looters. The EPA is nothing but the tool of the looters. Cap and trade on carbon dioxide is their fantasy windfall truckload of loot. Per a local handy-man I know, the EPA are now requiring people who paint houses for a living to obtain at their own expese, special certification for working in/on any home or building likely to have lead-based paint. The fee is $250 for the test and $250 per year for certification. If you are caught without current certification working on any home built earlier than 1968, the fine is $30,000. How many entrepreneurs and working men and women can the looters and moochers alienate before they are tossed from government? I agree with Jeremy. | ||
| Reindog |
He said moochers and looters. Heh heh, uh, heh heh. (<- Beavis and Butthead) | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." ...Voltaire The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights. [H.L. Mencken] "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."  H. L. Mencken] "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." [H. L. Mencken] (Message edited by Ferris_von_bueller on November 02, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The intent of the framers was to create a Federal Government incapable of solving most of the problems of the people. It is those seeking to gain power who have corrupted that form of government by promising to be the end all, be all cradle to grave. In the last 100 years of New Deal and Great Society efforts, the percentage of people in poverty hasn't decreased. The goal has never been to actually fix any problems but rather to create an entire underclass of individuals solely dependent upon the Federal Government. It's slavery of the worst kind. At least if you were a plantation owner, you would take care of your property. | ||
| Ourdee |
I like the coin money......It does not say "Print". | ||
| Buellkowski |
Wow. You guys really feel abused, robbed, and powerless, huh? I've been saying that the political change you want to see is there for you to make, and you reply with excuses, diatribes, and more "evidence" of abuse, robbery, and powerlessness. The difference between "popular" political policy and "sound" political policy is the difference between 50% plus 1 and 66.6%. I welcome more sound policies and so should we all. Amend the Constitution with sound, explicit policies and you will get no further argument. Until then, it's all just dogs barking. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Passing amendments doesn't fix the problem when political judges can be appointed to "interpret" meanings and powers into the Constitution that aren't there. The Framers never intended the Amendment process to be utilized on a regular basis. In the nearly 250 years of our country there have only been 27 amendments and the first 10 were passed at the time of enactment. We could pass a "plain language" amendment tomorrow and the affect of it could be undone by an activist court overnight. | ||
| Azxb9r |
Have a group of people read a document, and you will have more than one different interpretation. Something that one person sees as obvious, another person will see completely different. We need to return to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. I interpret this as meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted from its original intent. If that is what you meant, then I agree with you 100%. Now we just have to agree on interpretation of intent.  The writing of the Constitution allows it room to grow as society changes, but it is not a toy to be played with on a whim. I do not like the idea of amendments except in the event that it is absolutely necessary. People will always fight over interpretation, no matter how clearly you try to word something. The term "common welfare" is something that can be argued over for eternity, but what better way would there have been to word it? There is no way the framers could have foreseen every possible scenario the country would face. They did try to leave us with a guideline that would be workable for everybody over time. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The difference is in having a Constitution that is read for exactly what it says vs. what it can say. The framers created a nation with only 6 pages with the intent that those 6 pages be read for exactly what they say. If any additional powers of the Federal Government are needed, the Amendment process is spelled out in Article 5. If the powers were open ended, they wouldn't have been enumerated. They Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 would have simply said "Congress shall have whatever powers the majority of the population grants it". Your view of how the Constitution "grows" is 180* from the intent of the framers. We are seeing the effect of that erroneous thinking in Obamacare. The framers intended that the Constitution be read exactly as written with the amendment process being the manner for alteration. If there are no limited powers contained in the limitation, we simply have a document that provides for the governance of the mob. If you can get 50% plus 1 vote, you can win every election, write every law, and appoint every judge, and as such you can make the Constitution stay what you want and not what it says. The framers were VEHEMENTLY against democracy as a form of government. This is evidenced in Federalist Paper No. 10: "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison The framers didn't need to foresee every possible scenario. They provided the framework for alteration of the Constitution. That framework simply wasn't popular alteration of the meaning of the Constitution through judicial fiat. | ||
| Azxb9r |
I agree that they went to great lengths to keep the govt. or any one group from having too much power. Your response is an example of differences in interpretation. The framers knew that the Const. would have to survive the test of time. Some items were made very specific, and others are a little more vague. I used the phrase "for the common good" as an example of a section that can be interpreted in many ways. How do you go about defining what "the common good" is? What govt. services could be defined as for the common good, and who gets to make that decision? Our founders had experience with a system of govt. that dictated everything they did, and they wanted no more of that. They also created a document that could grow by amendment, but also was not strictly worded in some areas. Again...it comes down to interpretation. I am not saying that the Const. implies that a national health care system is something that the govt. should be doing, but it does not expressly state otherwise, so you will have some arguments saying that it does fall within its scope. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Which Article and Section of the Constitution contains the phrase "for the common good"? Why bother enumerating the powers thus limited what Congress can and can not do? Where in the Constitution do you find the principal of abrogation of an amendment of the Constitution through judicial fiat or 50% plus 1 vote? | ||
| Aesquire |
While I find your logic and reasoning correct, your actual argument is defeated by the exact same reasons the United States Constitution is written as a charter of Negative rights of the government. Some people are evil, or can delude themselves that what they do is for the greater good. ( I leave it to theologians to determine if that self delusion is itself evil, or perhaps demonic. After all, Liberation Theology IS demonic, per the Pope. One of those rare cases where we agree ) So Evil people ( or the delusional...for YOUR own good, of course ) simply will not obey the law, no matter if it's a traffic law, or the Constitution. Of course, IF the people enforced the Constitution with their votes and their other "clingy" things, it wouildn't be as big a problem as it has been this century. And most of last. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I think most people made the error in judgment that all elected officials were playing fair. Still today, people don't want to believe that the President and his administration are working diligently to undermine and ultimately destroy the Constitution as we know it. The document will still remain, but the words written on the parchment will be meaningless. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I am not saying that the Const. implies that a national health care system is something that the govt. should be doing, but it does not expressly state otherwise" It does actually. It says that items not specifically enumerated are reserved by the states. That means the federal government has no authority outside the boundaries of what is written in the Constitution. It does not state that the federal government should establish a national health care system, so the federal government has no authority to establish a national health care system. Individual states can enact universal health care, (to their detriment, as some have learned) but the federal government can not. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Which Article and Section of the Constitution contains the phrase "for the common good"? I was wondering the same. In his post prior to that he stated "common welfare." I can only guess that he's thinking of the preamble's "promote the general welfare" clause. He's apparently trying to hold up the preamble as a point of declared law. The preamble is not law, it is an introduction to the specific law contained within and defined by the document (the constitution) that it is introducing. Progressives cling to that one clause in the preamble as justification for their vast expansion of the federal government and their theft of property, their looting and mooching of the profits of hard-working prosperous Americans. From a strictly legal perspective, it is a deeply dishonest and and fraudulent interpretation of the constitution. The preamble makes no law, none whatsoever. The preamble only introduces the intent of the actual written law. It in no way allows abrogation of those specific written laws, none of which are general or vague as claimed by liberals. Words have meaning. Honesty is required to discern said meaning. Liberals are not honest. Even so, why not review the meaning of those words "provide for the general welfare" both when they were written and now to see if what Progressives believe is even supported by them absent the actual points of law mandated by the constitution. promote: pro•mote verb The applicable meanings shown in boldface type of "promote", "general", and "welfare" have not changed since 1787. The very recently concocted definition of "welfare" to mean government aid to people in need was intentionally pushed by progressives seeking to subvert our constitution and turn our nation into a "welfare state", a land of moochers and looters, a majority class of voters dependent upon the nanny states. Disgusting. The recent Obamacare law is certainly not aimed to grow the prosperity of the majority of Americans. It's aim was solely to force the majority to pay for the care of a small minority, so even concerning the preamble, the Progressives are dishonest. They propose that looting from "the rich" is promoting prosperity for all. It is a lie. They are liars. Now they have control of vastly greater sums of money, are putting in place monstrous new bureaucracies and hordes of new federal health police to oversee and enforce compliance to their grand socialist plan. Pure evil. Leave us the @!#$ alone! | ||
| Sifo |
Which Article and Section of the Constitution contains the phrase "for the common good"? I think that may be in the "Common Dreams" version. Our founders had experience with a system of govt. that dictated everything they did, and they wanted no more of that. They also created a document that could grow by amendment, but also was not strictly worded in some areas. Again...it comes down to interpretation. Not a very good reading of history. Much of the "tyranny" that the founders complained of had nothing to do with too much governance, but a lack of any sort of predictable governance according to any set of laws. The word of King George was law, and the word of the kings judges was also law. The problem was that each judge simply took it case by case and made decisions according to their own judgment. Even with the best of judges, you simply had no idea what the "law" was because there were few written laws. That is the tyranny that the founders spoke of. That is why you so often hear the phrase "we are a nation of laws". These are written laws that the people have agreed to live by and are written and passed by our elected representatives. So to modern times, when a judge decides to "interpret" the written laws because they feel times have changed, they are engaging in the exact same tyranny that our founders fought the revolutionary war over. They also warned that when a government becomes oppressive, that it is the duty of the people to overthrow it. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
"Our founders had experience with a system of govt. that dictated everything they did..." Seems like we are heading right back where our founders were intent on taking us away from... | ||
| Blake |
>>> So to modern times, when a judge decides to "interpret" the written laws because they feel times have changed, they are engaging in the exact same tyranny that our founders fought the revolutionary war over. They also warned that when a government becomes oppressive, that it is the duty of the people to overthrow it. Well stated and 100% accurate! |
