Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
You've been reading too much Brady Bunch propaganda. Or writing it, one of the two...
Federal power was to be extremely limited, but supreme within that scope. Art 1 Sec 8 was the definition of what it was supposed to do. Everything else, via the 10th Amendment, was off limits. NASA? The DEA? The Dept of Education? Dept of Energy? FCC/FAA? Not a single one has any relation to an Art 1 Sec 8 defined power of the FedGov.
The "general welfare" clause in the Preamble was never supposed to have the force of law. That came latter via judicial activism.
Something else I am also certain you will support as your "spirit of the constitution" has the rancid whiff of a "living Constitution" idiocy about it.
You are so far; pro-welfare, pro-gun control, and pro-taking of Private property for Private gain. You've used Monarchism as an excuse along the lines of "everyone has done it".
Gee... They are your posts. Right there. Just up thread for all to see... No, little troll, we won't agree on much. You see, I'm a conservative. You aren't.
You should have just ended your post there. King George's tax collectors and Redcoats would very much be amused by your contention.
Exactly, everyone can see you are lying. Making up crap and claiming that is what I believe. If I bring up history you claim that means I approve of it. If I say that a T-Rex ate plant eaters, you claim I root for the T-Rex.
Militia’s were what they were no matter what you believe. They weren’t figments of my imagination. Your confusion comes from thinking that “the People” means every individual cannot be prevented from having arms.
Article I is not a list of only the things the fed can do. It is a general framework and the General Welfare clause expands what is constitutional beyond that general list because that was what the Founders wanted. The proposal that the power be limited to the specific things listed was REJECTED by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention. ALL the major Founders, even Jefferson, understood there were powers outside those specified. Hamilton’s essay on the National Bank should clear up what is constitutional and what is not. He was, after all, the greatest lawyer in the country and the greatest expert on the Constitution.
According to your belief the nation could not have even lawfully bought the Louisiana Purchase; border control is not even mentioned is that unconstitutional; no mention of an air force, is that unconstitutional?
A mere written document means nothing to those determined to ignore it, so the spirit of the People is the most significant element in a society based upon law. If the people is degenerate even the best constitution means nothing.
But Libertarians don’t believe in constitutions in any case so why would you care?
Once again your lack of historical knowledge shows itself. NONE of the Founders shot at Georgie’s tax collectors.
I understood you are determined to ridicule or ignore the points you cannot refute and the Shay’s Rebellion point clearly illustrates this.
The Founders were appalled at attacks on the STATE (not Royal) courts and this was the greatest impetous to call the Convention. Note this was in 1787 NOT 1774.
Perhaps this will clear up your confusion about time, place, reasons for and, best of all, your fantasies about what has been said and what ACTUALLY been said.
No need to thank me.
What makes you believe that I believe states’ powers are limited by anything but state constitutions and the federal constitution? From my understanding of federalism states can do anything their constitutions allow which does not impact other states. Our constitution exists to help resolve those differences i.e. forming a “more perfect Union”.
There are powers of sovereignty which are implicitly contained within the concept of sovereignty. The feds possess all those implicit powers which are not prohibited by the constitution or contrary to the spirit (freedom) of the constitution or powers outside those productive of the ends specified.
This means that the fed can create a National Bank if it helps achieve the constitutional ends of the government: tax collection, military expenditures, control of government debt, control of the money supply.
Most of the things you don’t like can be justified to some extent because they involve means to the constitutional ends. This has become a legal issue and conservatives have to become expert in this area, the law.
Many of the laws we have need to go so don’t pretend that I support all those you don’t like. It may shock you to know that I support a drastic overhaul of the legal system wrt drugs, guns, environmental laws. There are what 20,000 gun laws?
Government has immense power, dangerous power and our constitution is the greatest attempt to control that power.
But the reality remains the greatest danger to humanity is not governments but the people which creates those governments and approves blindly what they do. This points to another weakness of Libertarianism - the inability to recognize the evil within people which demands social control.
If you are asking why courts require disarmed people, I would say that it has likely been that way since the Athenians. To prevent intimidation of the judges and jurors.
But I guess you cry yourself to sleep every night because Al Capone and the Outfit could not show up at his trial armed with Tommy guns. Or the Latin Kings have to leave their arsenal elsewhere.
Just cherry pick and ignore that inconvenient, for your distortion, clause “...as far as its practical purpose has been SO FAR.” There has been little or no constitutional law regarding this amendment. As should have been obvious from what I said, that could change, if and when cases come before the courts invoking the 10th.
States have no sovereignty outside those powers affecting only the state itself. Hence, any laws negatively affecting other states or the Union are null and void. States were created either at the behest of the United States Congress or under the auspices of it. The Colonies were asked to write constitutions transforming themselves into states. The other states were formed from land purchased or conquered by the federal government.
Power corrupts of this there is no doubt. This realization/fear was the reason the first form of the Union, the Articles of Confederation, was tried. It proved to be incapable of organizing the Union so the Constitution was written to remove major elements of true sovereignty from the states and add more elements to the Union.
Thanks for the entertainment on this thread. I’d never made the association remarked upon of the 3rd form of corpse before. I always figured it was a joke recycled from the department of redundancy department. Keep it up brother!
“I do notice how you are quite unable to give a good reason for what [inconsistencies/injustices] I’m pointing out; the reason is simple: to do so is impossible, defending the indefensible.”
When did I get appointed the Perry Mason for injustice? Where do I send the bill?
LoL, why would I claim the Founders supported any or all of those laws? What am I expected to justify the thousands of unnecessary laws the state and fed govs have passed over the years or goofy court cases? What is the matter with you?
“Monarchism is different that Socialism.” Yes, that is what I told you although I said it correctly.
“Ancient Greece had Kings. The early beginnings of Democracy as well, but the King was still the King. In Lacedaemonia, they actually had Two Kings.” Actually, Athens had no King when it changed to democracy. Sparta never had a democracy, either.
“The Founders had a rather famous debate in the first Congress over setting up a pension fund for an Admiral’s widow. The idea of the FedGov provided individual welfare was resoundingly rejected.” This is supposed to show exactly what? Most of that generation understood the General Welfar to be things that affected all the states or all the people.
What did I lie about, in reality not your imagination?
Actually an argument for a Central Bank could be made solely on the Congress's power to regulate money, which is explicitly listed.
I don't know if I'd say that he was the greatest lawyer of the time; certainly John Adams, the man who defended and secured the acquittals of the British soldiers* in the "Boston Massacre", deserves consideration.
* -- Not inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, as that document states that Life is an inherent right and the soldiers were defending their own lives.
According to your belief the nation could not have even [1] lawfully bought the Louisiana Purchase; [2] border control is not even mentioned is that unconstitutional; [3] no mention of an air force, is that unconstitutional?
On order:
Agreed; we are seeing this played out with Fast & Furious, an obvious and unapologetic case of state sponsored terrorism and, arguably, treason.
But Libertarians don’t believe in constitutions in any case so why would you care?
Right, all the Libertarians are just quaking under their beds, muttering: "The Constitution Doesn't Exist... The Constitution Doesn't Exist..." [/sarc]
The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, is far more of a constitutionalist than Romney.
Hamilton was basically refuting Jefferson’s ideas about sovereignty as much as justifying the creation of the Bank.
Adams was a great lawyer but he was not practicing at the time Hamilton was practicing. Hamilton would have been one of the wealthiest men in the nation had he just practiced law. Working for Washington cost him a great fortune.
Art II, Sec 2 — “He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,” — this means that the purchase could be of the form of a treaty; which is, IIRC, how it was done.
_______
Jefferson did not accept this view until Madison insisted he clam up with his objections.
________________
It actually is; Article 4, Section 4... never mind that the States themselves are not barred from enforcing their borders.
______
By implication but there is no specific statement. This is why unstated powers are there to implement express powers.
______________
The Air Force is indeed unconstitutional and, by all rights, ought to be either (a) disbanded, (b) turned over to the States, or (c) placed [back] into the Army. This is silly since it is obvious that MILITARY FORCES were what was meant by Navy and Army.
______________
F&F would not be considered treason under the constitutional definition. The only definition in the Constitution.
Of course, you would claim Non Entity is a great constitutionalist but it doesn’t even matter. I’m a great constitutionalist but in the real political world it does not matter either.
The Constitution defines Treason shuch:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.It is from the underlined portion that I will mainly argue; first though we must note the plural [italic]: this pluralization is indication of multiple entities. The federal government is but a single entity, therefore the definition of treason cannot apply thereunto. Given the elimination of the federal government, we are left with the states, and it is from such that we must consider.
Given that the drug cartels are responsible for human & drug trafficking, which they maintain control over via corruption and/or violence we have a two pronged danger to any particular state: (1) the corruption, which quickly ruins the integrity of the state itself, and (2) the violence, by which they harm the citizens and residents of the state, which the state is to protect. We can thus consider the cartels to be enemies of the several states.
Given the above, purely with Fast & Furious, the federal government provided them aid in the form of physical armament and comfort in protecting them from prosecution for violating laws... the case could, and should, be made stronger by including references to promises of (a) non-prosecution and (b) warning of drug-raid time/location by the government; but this is not strictly necessary, as the basic criteria for Treason charges are met already.
Of course, you would claim Non Entity is a great constitutionalist but it doesn’t even matter.
I didn't say he was a "great constitutionalist", I said he was better a constitutionalist than Romney.
I’m a great constitutionalist but in the real political world it does not matter either.
Sure, you might be better than Roberts... but then again anyone with an ounce of common sense [in addition to integrity] would be a better constitutionalist.
Um... Wrong. Very, stupidly, utterly wrong. Citizen militiamen were expected to show up bearing certain equipment. Equipment they ALREADY OWNED. Kinda hard to do that if you don't have the concomitant protected Right to such things. Don't take my word for it...
When Madison and his select committee drafted the Bill of Rights, they did their best to combine briefly the essential elements of the various state bills of rights as well as the many suggestions made by state ratifying conventions. The effort resulted in a good deal of cutting, revising, and synthesizing.[73] This drafting approach was certainly used with the second amendment, as the committee incorporated two distinct, yet related, rights into a single amendment.[74]
The brief discussion of the amendment in Congress makes clear that the committee had no intention of subordinating one right to the other.[75] Elbridge Gerry attacked the phrase dealing with conscientious objectors, those "scrupulous of bearing arms," that appeared in the original (p.137)amendment. Revealing a libertarian distrust of government, Gerry maintained that the declaration of rights in the proposed amendment "is intended to secured the people against the mal-administration of the Government," and indicated that the federal government might employ the conscientious objector phrase "to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."[76] This would return America to a European-style society in which governments systematically disarmed their citizens. Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania also strenuously objected to this phrase for fear it might "lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms."[77]
While congressmen firmly believed in the right of individual citizens to possess arms, no consensus existed regarding whether or not these people should be required to bear arms in the militia. One representative declared: "As far as the whole body of the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought not to require more than is necessary; for that would be a just cause of complaint."[78] But another representative observed that "the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burdensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[79]
Other congressmen even went so far as to argue that the states should supply firearms to those Americans without them.[80] Regardless of their voicers' feelings about the militia, such statements clearly revealed an urge to get arms into the hands of all American males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and not to restrict such possession to those in militia service.[81]Gunsite journals
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789
"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." - 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson amp Rutland, 12:193, 204)
The difficulties which present themselves are on one side almost sufficient to dismay the most sanguine, whilst on the other side the most timid are compelled to encounter them by the mortal diseases of the existing constitution. These diseases need not be pointed out to you who so well understand them. Suffice it to say that they are at present marked by symptoms which are truly alarming, which have tainted the faith of the most orthodox republicans, and which challenge from the votaries of liberty every concession in favor of stable Government not infringing fundamental principles, as the only security against an opposite extreme of our present situation. I think myself that it will be expedient in the first place to lay the foundation of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their Legislative authorities. 2dly. Over & above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local Legislatures. Without this defensive power experience and reflection have satisfied me that however ample the federal powers may be made, or however Clearly their boundaries may be delineated, on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative sovereignties of the States. The effects of this provision would be not only to guard the national rights and interests against invasion, but also to restrain the States from thwarting and molesting each other, and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by papermoney and other unrighteous measures which favor the interest of the majority. - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, 1788
"The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurption and arbitraty power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution, 1883
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
IOW... You are wrong. Very, very, Schumer-esque liberal gun hating troll type wrong.
Do you know where the "general welfare clause" exists? In the preamble. You do know that preambles are not operative clauses right? Well... Maybe not or you wouldn't be mouthing such stupidities...
"The worthy member says, that they can make a treaty relinquishing our rights, and inflicting punishments; because all treaties are declared paramount to the constitutions and laws of the states. An attentive consideration of this will show the committee that they can do no such thing. The provision of the 6th article is, that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. They can, by this, make no treaty which shall be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or inconsistent with the delegated powers. The treaties they make must be under the authority of the United States, to be within their province. It is sufficiently secured, because it only declares that, in pursuance of the powers given, they shall be the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding any thing in the constitution or laws of particular states." - George Nicholas. Elltios Debates. Vol 3, 507
Whoops... There goes that idiot assertions of yours. The FedGov's powers were to be specific and supreme. Narrowly defined, but those powers not specifically given to the FedGov were to devolve to the States and the people of those States. This is where your confusion over the 10th Amendment comes in...
"Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, this great national concern is handled in a manner quite new to me. When arguments are used which are calculated in their nature to mislead men,--when I reflect on the subject, I dread that our rights are about to be given away, though I may possibly be mistaken. I said yesterday, and not without thinking much on the subject, that my mind would be at ease were we on the same grounds, in this respect, as the English are. Gentlemen think that Great Britain was adduced by me, in this instance, unfortunately for myself, because the learned Judge Blackstone says that treaties are binding on the nation, and the king can make treaties. That learned judge says there is one thing which operates as a guard. That thing we have not in this paper--it is responsibility. He tells you that the minister who will sacrifice the interest of the nation is subject to parliamentary impeachment. This has been ever found to be effectual. But I beg gentlemen to consider the American impeachment. What is it? It is a mere sham--a mere farce. When they do any thing derogatory to the honor or interest of their country, they are to try themselves. Is it so in England? The history of that country shows that they have blocks and gibbets. The violators of the public interest have been tried justly and impartially, and perished by those necessary instruments of justice. Can there be any security where offenders mutually try one another? I hope gentlemen will consider the necessity of amendment in this clause.
We are told that the state rights are preserved. Suppose the state right to territory be preserved; I ask and demand, How do the rights of persons stand, when they have power to make any treaty, and that treaty is paramount to constitutions, laws, and every thing? When a person shall be treated in the most horrid manner, and most cruelly and inhumanly tortured, will the security of territorial rights grant him redress? Suppose an unusual punishment in consequence of an arrest similar to that of the Russian ambassador; can it be said to be contrary to the state rights?
I might go on in this discrimination; but it is too obvious that the security of territory is no security of individual safety. I ask, How are the state rights, individual rights, and national rights, secured? Not as in England; for the authority quoted from Blackstone would, if stated right, prove, in a thousand instances, that, if the king of England attempted to take away the rights of individuals, the law would stand against him. The acts of Parliament would stand in his way. The bill and declaration of rights would be against him. The common law is fortified by the bill of rights. The rights of the people cannot be destroyed, even by the paramount operation of the law of nations, as the case of the Russian ambassador evinces. If you look for a similar security in the paper on your table, you look in vain. That paper is defective without such a declaration of rights. It is unbounded without such restrictions. If the Constitution be paramount, how are the constitutions and laws of the states to stand? Their operation will be totally controlled by it; for it is paramount to every thing, unless you can show some guard against it. The rights of persons are exposed as it stands now.
The calculation of the honorable gentleman (Mr. Corbin) was wrong. I am sure he spoke from the best of his recollection, when he referred to our treaty of peace with Great Britain, and said that it was binding on the nation, though disapproved of by Parliament. Did not an act of Parliament pass, acknowledging the independence of America? If the king of England wished to dismember the empire, would he dare to attempt it without the advice of Parliament? The most hardy minister would not dare to advise him to attempt it without a previous consultation of Parliament. No cession of territory is binding on the nation unless it be fortified by an act of Parliament. Will it be so in your American government? No. They will tell you that they are omnipotent as to this point.
We are so used to speak of enormity of powers, that we are familiarized with it. To me this power appears still destructive; for they can make any treaty. If Congress forbears to exercise it, you may thank them; but they may exercise it if they please, and as they please. They have a right, from the paramount power given them, to do so. Will the gentleman say that this power is paramount to the state laws only? Is it not paramount to the Constitution and every thing? Can any thing be paramount to what is paramount? Will not the laws of Congress be binding on Congress, as well as on any particular state? Will they not be bound by their own acts? The worthy gentleman must seethe impropriety of his assertion. To render this safe, I conceive we must adopt my honorable friend's amendment. The component part of this supreme power are the President, senators, and House of Representatives. The latter is the most material part. They ought to interpose in the formation of treaties. When their consent is necessary, there will be a certainty of attending to the public interests.
Mr. Henry then contended that there was real responsibility in the British government, and sufficient security arising from the common law, declaration of rights, &c.; whereas, in this government, there was no barrier to stop their mad career. He hoped to obtain the amendments which his honorable friend had proposed." Patrick Henry. Elltiot's Debates. Vol 3. pgs 512-514
Yeah... But ol' Pat Henry didn't know what he was talking about... Oh yeah? How about James Monroe?
As it will operate on all states and individuals, powers given, it generally should be qualified. It may be attributed to the prejudice of my education, but I am a decided and warm friend to a bill of rights--the polar star and great support of American liberty; and I am clearly of opinion that the general powers conceded by that plan, such as the impost, &c., should be guarded and checked by a bill of rights.
Permit me to examine the reasoning that admits that all powers not given up are reserved. Apply this. If you give to the United States the power of direct taxation, in making all laws necessary to give it operation, (which is a power given by the last clause in the 8th section of the 1st article,) suppose they should be of opinion that the right of the trial by jury was not one of the requisites to carry it into effect; there is no check in this Constitution to prevent the formal abolition of it. There is a general power given to them to make all laws that will enable them to carry their powers into effect. There are no limits pointed out. They are not restrained or controlled from making any law, however oppressive in its operation, which they may think necessary to carry their powers into effect. By this general, unqualified power, they may infringe not only on the trial by jury, but the liberty of the press, and every right that is not expressly secured or excepted from that general power. I conceive that such general powers are very dangerous. Our great unalienable rights ought to be secured from being destroyed by such unlimited powers, either by a bill of rights, or by an express provision in the body of the Constitution. It is immaterial in which of these two modes rights are secured. - James Monroe. Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Tuesday, June 10, 1788.
And you know what they did next to alay James' fears? The Bill of Rights. Sets further limits in declarative statements as part of the "Supreme Law of the Land". Including "shall not be infringed".
Yeah... And TJ even warned us about assholes like you...
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson. 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)
You need to read up more on the Sons of Liberty. Later on, Committees of Concern...
It all counts. From Charon to a corpus of writing... ;-)
Wrong. What the hell do you think the purpose of the Damos was? You had the two hereditary Kings, the Damos of Peers, and the Ephors. The Kings acted as Generals during war time and judges during peace. The Ephors were a religious caste/advisory council. The Peers all had a voice and a vote in the Damos.
Crack a book once in a while...
Most of that generation understood the General Welfar to be things that affected all the states or all the people.
Wrong. The "general welfare" was just a "for instance" in the Preamble to the Constitution. It was never meant to "provide specific welfare programs to all Americans". That's liberal insanity on display to even suggest such a thing...
Typical stunt by you loons, bury your opponent with B.S. Throw up a lot of quotes taken out of context in every case and hope you hit a target.
If you can’t make your own arguments don’t bother. I am not going to read pages of tangential (at best) remarks. If you can’t speak your own words then shut up.
Apparently you think the Sons of Liberty were Founders. Do I need to define the term for you?
There is no “war” with Mexico so no treason involved.
We have a choice between two parties or a pretense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.