Thread: "We The People"

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Actually it's not open-ended clauses sitting there in plain fucking English, it's the exact language of what they wrote that is sitting there in plain English. You obviously don't understand the context in which the Constitution was written or the purpose of the document. Given everything I've ever seen CONTEMPORANEOUS to the time of the founders, they did not mean for the Constitution or its "clauses" to be interpreted the way in which you claim they are to be interpreted. Who do you honestly think knows more about the Constitution and its purpose: the people who wrote the damn thing or "the authorities living today"? Think about it real hard before you answer.

Just because you don't understand that language changes over time or that the only reason the present paradigm exists with regard to how most people view the Constitution (your position basically) because of technically illegitimate court decisons, that does not mean the founders were drunk when writing the Constitution. They certainly could not help the possibility that we would live in a time in which people are so ignorant of the Constitution that they advance ridiculous arguments like yours.

Once again, you have provided absolutely no evidence for anything; you didn't before and still haven't. Apparently there is nothing that actually backs your position, or should I say opinion, because that's exactly what it is. And BTW, I have read the Constitution, apparently you haven't, nor have you read what the people who wrote the fucking thing wrote about it. If you had, you'd see very clearly that your argument makes no sense. Wait, maybe that's why you've provided absolutely nothing to back your point of view. Well fine, here, I'll link stuff yet again to support my argument:

On the general welfare clause:

Rob Natelson: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause|Tenth Amendment Center (click on the links, particularly Federalist #41):

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

In other words, Publius here is saying that the "general welfare" clause is contained within a preamble which introduces the specific and enumerated powers listed below it in Article 1 Section 8. Not, as many claim, that general welfare means what ever the hell the person interpreting it wants it to mean, otherwise why would enumerated powers be listed in the first place?

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).


On the commerce clause:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/cjo...ndas_thumb.pdf

Commerce Clause Abuse

The Courts and the Commerce Clause: Obliterating Original Intent|Tenth Amendment Center

On the "elastic clause":

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub

they also didn't consider females, or non-whites, or anyone under the age of 21 to be worthy of being a citizen (ie able to vote).
But thats changed over time as well.
They also considered blacks to be only 3/5ths of a person ( one of the great compromises that got the constitution signed in the first place).


And again, those clauses ARE open ended. Thats basic reading comprehension dude, if you can't grasp that then you need to go back to the first grade and start over again. If they didn't want the constitution to be open ended they shouldn't have left those glaring loopholes in it. Since they did, there's no sense crying foul that the loopholes are exploited. Just campaign to get them fixed. You're not going to get the votes for it, but you should always standup for your ideals.

Originally Posted by reality

they also didn't consider females, or non-whites, or anyone under the age of 21 to be worthy of being a citizen (ie able to vote).
But thats changed over time as well.
They also considered blacks to be only 3/5ths of a person ( one of the great compromises that got the constitution signed in the first place).


And again, those clauses ARE open ended. Thats basic reading comprehension dude, if you can't grasp that then you need to go back to the first grade and start over again. If they didn't want the constitution to be open ended they shouldn't have left those glaring loopholes in it. Since they did, there's no sense crying foul that the loopholes are exploited. Just campaign to get them fixed. You're not going to get the votes for it, but you should always standup for your ideals.

Yeah your right they didn't consider women or non-whites to be worthy of citizenship, you are absolutely correct. That is why that situtation was changed the LEGITIMATE way throught those little things called amendments AND NOT throught interpretation. Do you even understand the main reason for the 3/5 compromise. Granted, it's wrong to treat people like they are less than a whole person, regardless of the reason why, but do you understand why that compromise happened in the first place? The Southern states wanted 1:1 representation for their slaves, but did not want to give them citizenship or rights. Many of the delegates from the north (many of them very opposed to slavery) felt this was ridiculous, and in the hope of limiting Southern power in the Congress, proposed the 3/5 compromise so that the South would not have as much representation as it had originally hoped for. Can you even imagine how long slavery might have lasted without that 3/5 compromise? Plus if you understood anything about the socio-political realities of the time - you would understand that our country would never have become one political entity had the North tried to force the South to give up slavery that early in our political evolution. It couldn't have happened (though it would have been better if had been possible) and our country end up being what it is today; the Constitutional Convention would have failed.

Now that said, I'm not justifying slavery or discrimintation.

Now, slavery and the fact that the founders did not make women citizens from the beginning does not invalidate my argument, nor does it invalidate what the founders wrote in the Constitution or what they wrote about it. I've seen this argument a million times on here and it is a distraction. Basically "well some of the founders had slaves, therefore their argument about the general welfare clause is null and void and it can mean what ever I want it to". No, their position on slavery, either way, has no bearing on arguing the original intent of certain clauses in the Constitution.

Finally, leave out the fucking insults. I am fucking sick and tired of you guys coming on here and spamming this thread with insults. First I'm fascist, now I'm stupid and need to go back to the first grade. I have a Master's degree; I can understand what I read just fine. Did you even read what I linked, I'm sure you didn't. Insulting people by calling them stupid just because they disagree with ones opinion shows how stupid they are, not the person you are accusing of stupidity. You have yet to address ANY of my arguments with evidence of your own. Just like Drake, you come on here, feign an argument, then when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you, you accuse someone of not having basic reading comprehension skills. Seriously, I have not once directly insulted you or Drake. WHY THE FUCK do you keep doing it to me. If you can do nothing but insult people get the fuck off this thread and come back when you can actually back up your argument with some evidence.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Yeah your right they didn't consider women or non-whites to be worthy of citizenship, you are absolutely correct. That is why that situtation was changed the LEGITIMATE way throught those little things called amendments AND NOT throught interpretation. Do you even understand the main reason for the 3/5 compromise. Granted, it's wrong to treat people like they are less than a whole person, regardless of the reason why, but do you understand why that compromise happened in the first place? The Southern states wanted 1:1 representation for their slaves, but did not want to give them citizenship or rights. Many of the delegates from the north (many of them very opposed to slavery) felt this was ridiculous, and in the hope of limiting Southern power in the Congress, proposed the 3/5 compromise so that the South would not have as much representation as it had originally hoped for. Can you even imagine how long slavery might have lasted without that 3/5 compromise? Plus if you understood anything about the socio-political realities of the time - you would understand that our country would never have become one political entity had the North tried to force the South to give up slavery that early in our political evolution. It couldn't have happened (though it would have been better if had been possible) and our country end up being what it is today; the Constitutional Convention would have failed.

Now that said, I'm not justifying slavery or discrimintation.

Now, the slavery and the fact that the founders did not make women citizens from the beginning does not invalidate my argument, nor does it invalidate what the founders wrote in the Constitution or what they wrote about it. I've seen this argument a million times on here and it is a distraction. Basically "well some of the founders had slaves, therefore their argument about the general welfare clause is null and void and it can mean what ever I want it to". No, their position on slavery, either way, has no bearing on arguing the original intent of certain clauses in the Constitution.

Finally, leave out the fucking insults. I am fucking sick and tired of you guys coming on here and spamming this thread with insults. First I'm fascist, now I'm stupid and need to go back to the first grade. I have a Master's degree; I can understand what I read just fine. Did you even read what I linked, I'm sure you didn't. Insulting people by calling them stupid just because they disagree with your opinion shows how stupid you are, not the person you are accusing of stupidity. You have yet to address ANY of my arguments with evidende of your own. Just like Drake, you come on here, feign an argument, then when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you, you accuse someone of not having basic reading comprehension skills. Seriously, I have not once directly insulted you or Drake. WHY THE FUCK do you keep doing it to me. If you can do nothing but insult people get the fuck off this thread and come back when you can actually back up your argument with some evidence.

Yes i do understand the economic, cultural, and political implications of the 3/5s compromise. That doesn't make declaring that another member of the same species is somehow 3/5s of an actual person because they have more melanin in their skin. Thats fucking retarded.
All i'm saying is the Founders were neither perfect, nor geniuses, nor beings of perfect moral character. They aren't some sort of demi-gods that can do no wrong. And by the way you read the constitution they most certainly DID fuck up ROYALLY by leaving the elastic clause in place. (the ability and in fact DUTY to make any laws that are deemed for the general welfare etc is spelled out, plainly along with the rest of the enumerated powers.) The definition of general welfare and common defense change from admin to admin based on what they can get away with. If you don't like having an open ended clause in the constitution, ammend it away.

I have yet to insult you sir. Trust me, when I do you'll know about it.

I didn't call you stupid, as that is against forum rules. I simply questioned your reading comprehension and offered a possible solution. Take from that what you will, but don't make claims about things I didn't say skippy.


What you linked are OPINION sites, backed up with the OPINIONS of a FEW founders who are now dead. They don't change the fact that the Constitution contains open clauses that are easily exploited for nearly any purpose with enough popular support. Again, don't like it? Don't deny that it exists, ERASE IT.

Originally Posted by reality

Yes i do understand the economic, cultural, and political implications of the 3/5s compromise. That doesn't make declaring that another member of the same species is somehow 3/5s of an actual person because they have more melanin in their skin. Thats fucking retarded.
All i'm saying is the Founders were neither perfect, nor geniuses, nor beings of perfect moral character. They aren't some sort of demi-gods that can do no wrong. And by the way you read the constitution they most certainly DID fuck up ROYALLY by leaving the elastic clause in place. (the ability and in fact DUTY to make any laws that are deemed for the general welfare etc is spelled out, plainly along with the rest of the enumerated powers.) The definition of general welfare and common defense change from admin to admin based on what they can get away with. If you don't like having an open ended clause in the constitution, ammend it away.

I have yet to insult you sir. Trust me, when I do you'll know about it.

I didn't call you stupid, as that is against forum rules. I simply questioned your reading comprehension and offered a possible solution. Take from that what you will, but don't make claims about things I didn't say skippy.


What you linked are OPINION sites, backed up with the OPINIONS of a FEW founders who are now dead. They don't change the fact that the Constitution contains open clauses that are easily exploited for nearly any purpose with enough popular support. Again, don't like it? Don't deny that it exists, ERASE IT.

1. What part of this do you not understand? I never said the founders were perfect, ever. I never once made that claim. I said they wrote a document with a specific purpose that enumerated specific powers to the federal gov't and then they explained (through debates, essays, etc.) just exactly what they mean by these clauses that you think are open-ended and which have become "controversial". The ONLY reason they are "controversial" and "interpretable" is because ONCE AGAIN the SC gave itself the power of judicial review (historical fact) which then gave it the power to interpret and thus expand the meaning of these "clauses" which very clearly, once again by looking at the historical evidence contemporaneous to the time period, were not meant to be what you claim they are.

2. A good bit of what I linked where actual scholarly works, particularly the bit on the commerce and elastic clauses. Did you even read it? I don't think you need to be questioning someone's reading comprehension when you refuse to even link actual evidence backing your claims which clearly constitute nothing but your opinion.

3. Speaking of opinion, how the hell are the opinions of the founders not pertinent? THEY WROTE THE DAMN THING! Quite frankly, since they authored it (and I'm assuming they knew what they wrote, just like if you wrote an autobiography for instance, I'm sure you'd know more about what you are writing than I would), I'm going to have to go with their interpretation over that of some judge living in 2010. That's called common sense.

4. Skippy, it's pretty damn implied, when you tell someone to "go back to the 1st grade" that you are basically calling them an idiot.

5. I can't change the Constitution or amend it on my own, just like you can't so quit telling me to go "erase" it. If you don't like the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and the overwhelming contemporaneous historical evidence suggests that my argument as outlined throughout this thread is correct, then how about you change it through amendment?

6. Yes reality is: politicians manipulate and interpret the Constitution however they want to; this does not mean it is right, nor does it mean that the founders intended for this to happen.

7. Please provide some damn evidence already for your OPINION. It may sound funny to say shit like "dude, it's basic reading comprehension, go back to the 1st grade", but you only make yourself look bad by constantly dodging my questions and not defending your position with some actual evidence.

8. I never said that the 3/5 compromise was the morally right thing to do or that the compromise was necessarily a good thing, in fact I addressed this in my prior post. I was stating a fact; the 3/5 compromise wasn't created simply as a tool of racism. And no, of course the founders were not perfect or geniuses, I never claimed as much. I just simply said that they wrote the document that is the law of the land. They wrote it with a specific purpose and they very clearly, over years of debate, established that purpose and what parts of it meant. It's there GO READ IT. ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH, instead of you know just insulting other people's reading comprehension skills. Apparently you can't comprehend that paragraph from Federalist #41 for instance, as you completely ignored it, as you did everything else I posted in favor of distraction or purely your opinion.

Oh and here, if you won't trust what you call "opinion sites" to validate my position, how about a link to the Library of Congress which has original scanned copies and copied texts of all of the Federalists Papers and notes from the Constitutional Convention. Here, do some research. And I beg you, PLEASE point out, in any of these documents I just linked to you where your opinion on the purpose and nature of the Constitution (and the intentions of the founders) is supported:

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I recommend you focus on Federalists # 41-43, but all of them are good

Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 - (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

And of course, not that you will trust it, but here is what one great legal scholar and founder of Black's Law Dictionary, Henry Campbell Black said about constitutions in general in 1927:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Actually it's not open-ended clauses sitting there in plain fucking English, it's the exact language of what they wrote that is sitting there in plain English. You obviously don't understand the context in which the Constitution was written or the purpose of the document. Given everything I've ever seen CONTEMPORANEOUS to the time of the founders, they did not mean for the Constitution or its "clauses" to be interpreted the way in which you claim they are to be interpreted. Who do you honestly think knows more about the Constitution and its purpose: the people who wrote the damn thing or "the authorities living today"? Think about it real hard before you answer.

Just because you don't understand that language changes over time or that the only reason the present paradigm exists with regard to how most people view the Constitution (your position basically) because of technically illegitimate court decisons, that does not mean the founders were drunk when writing the Constitution. They certainly could not help the possibility that we would live in a time in which people are so ignorant of the Constitution that they advance ridiculous arguments like yours.

Once again, you have provided absolutely no evidence for anything; you didn't before and still haven't. Apparently there is nothing that actually backs your position, or should I say opinion, because that's exactly what it is. And BTW, I have read the Constitution, apparently you haven't, nor have you read what the people who wrote the fucking thing wrote about it. If you had, you'd see very clearly that your argument makes no sense. Wait, maybe that's why you've provided absolutely nothing to back your point of view. Well fine, here, I'll link stuff yet again to support my argument:

On the general welfare clause:

Rob Natelson: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause|Tenth Amendment Center (click on the links, particularly Federalist #41):

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

In other words, Publius here is saying that the "general welfare" clause is contained within a preamble which introduces the specific and enumerated powers listed below it in Article 1 Section 8. Not, as many claim, that general welfare means what ever the hell the person interpreting it wants it to mean, otherwise why would enumerated powers be listed in the first place?

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).


On the commerce clause:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/cjo...ndas_thumb.pdf

Commerce Clause Abuse

The Courts and the Commerce Clause: Obliterating Original Intent|Tenth Amendment Center

On the "elastic clause":

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub

Since its signing the argument has been about the use or non use of a semi-colon as to the extent of the powers implied under General Welfare in clause one article one section 8 of the document. It would seem its use after the word states in clause one and after each clause that what is created is one very long run on sentence and would embrace every utterance as being connected to the other including the first clause leaving "General Welfare" (as enumerated) and actions open to the consideration of Congress in respect to extent.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Since its signing the argument has been about the use or non use of a semi-colon as to the extent of the powers implied under General Welfare in clause one article one section 8 of the document. It would seem its use after the word states in clause one and after each clause that what is created is one very long run on sentence and would embrace every utterance as being connected to the other including the first clause leaving "General Welfare" (as enumerated) and actions open to the consideration of Congress in respect to extent.

No, it would seem that people simply cannot understand the English language. The general welfare clause is included within the preamble to Article 1 Section 8.

Definition of preamble:

–noun
1.
an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
2.
the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.
a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.

"General welfare" is itself not an enumerated power, it introduces those powers listed below it and those powers listed below it are in the context of the preamble.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

No, it would seem that people simply cannot understand the English language. The general welfare clause is included within the preamble to Article 1 Section 8.

Definition of preamble:

–noun
1.
an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
2.
the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.
a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.

"General welfare" is itself not an enumerated power, it introduces those powers listed below it and those powers listed below it are in the context of the preamble.

That argument remains unfinished by more qualified persons than currently present. However, Another voice on the key elements follows:



A Tax Like Any Other


"Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His latest book, with Reva B. Siegel, is “The Constitution in 2020.” He participated in a discussion on this issue in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance.

What the opponents are really claiming is that it is unconstitutional to make Americans pay taxes.
People are exempt from the tax if they get health insurance through their employer or through Medicare, are poor, are dependents, are in the military, live overseas, or have a religious objection"

"The new law keeps insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions or from imposing lifetime caps on coverage. The individual mandate makes these popular aspects of health care reform possible."

Skeptic1

THe Federal Government currently imposes a payroll tax (on wages subject to such) on a national basis that is used by states as necessary to ensure they have ample funds to cover their unemployment obligation disbursements. The use of such funds by each state develops a factor that is
added to state calculations for such needs and once again imposed as (in effect) an add on tax to return federal funds used to the government along with the bite to replenish estimated future needs in funding this back-up insurance. We also of course apply a payroll FICA tax on ever ones earned income including a non capped tax for Medicare.

Now comes the government and says; each person in the the USA below medicare age is to also to have health insurance (current law). The premiums for such could be deducted from payrolls using a formula similar to that used for income tax (considering income and dependent status). Programs for unemployed, low wage, and children will stay as they are. Private insurance acceptable but (as is now done with Medicare each year of non participation in an approved plan (not accepting government mandates) will cumulatively pay 10% more per year ending progression upon using a participating plan).

Are there States ready to drop all progressive federal programs on the issue of Constitutionality ? Is Medicare constitutional ? Do they want a halt to federal unemployment back-up cash ?

Originally Posted by skeptic1

That argument remains unfinished by more qualified persons than currently present. However, Another voice on the key elements follows:



A Tax Like Any Other


"Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His latest book, with Reva B. Siegel, is “The Constitution in 2020.” He participated in a discussion on this issue in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance.

What the opponents are really claiming is that it is unconstitutional to make Americans pay taxes.
People are exempt from the tax if they get health insurance through their employer or through Medicare, are poor, are dependents, are in the military, live overseas, or have a religious objection"

"The new law keeps insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions or from imposing lifetime caps on coverage. The individual mandate makes these popular aspects of health care reform possible."

Skeptic1

THe Federal Government currently imposes a payroll tax (on wages subject to such) on a national basis that is used by states as necessary to ensure they have ample funds to cover their unemployment obligation disbursements. The use of such funds by each state develops a factor that is
added to state calculations for such needs and once again imposed as (in effect) an add on tax to return federal funds used to the government along with the bite to replenish estimated future needs in funding this back-up insurance. We also of course apply a payroll FICA tax on ever ones earned income including a non capped tax for Medicare.

Now comes the government and says; each person in the the USA below medicare age is to also to have health insurance (current law). The premiums for such could be deducted from payrolls using a formula similar to that used for income tax (considering income and dependent status). Programs for unemployed, low wage, and children will stay as they are. Private insurance acceptable but (as is now done with Medicare each year of non participation in an approved plan (not accepting government mandates) will cumulatively pay 10% more per year ending progression upon using a participating plan).

Are there States ready to drop all progressive federal programs on the issue of Constitutionality ? Is Medicare constitutional ? Do they want a halt to federal unemployment back-up cash ?

Congratulations on being the first person to actually attempt to back up your argument with some type of evidence or supporting arguments.

Now that said, the opinion of a legal scholar living today on the topic of the health care bill and taxes is not necessary evidence of the "flexible" or "you can interpret what ever you want in the Constitution and this was the original intent of the people who wrote it" position, but fair enough. I'll address your source in a minute, but first let me say that what you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand: the original intent of the founders and whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" that changes according to social whims or that it enumerates specific powers to the federal gov't for the purpose of limiting its power and maximizing liberty.

Now as to your quote:

Yes the federal gov't has the power to tax. I am dubious as to whether or not the individual mandate is simply just a tax, but of course in admitting it is a tax, one is also admitting that Obama DID raise taxes, and yes on the middle class as well. BUT, I actually never once mentioned that the health care bill is unconstitutional on grounds of the individual mandate (though it might very well be), I maintain that it is unconstitutional for other reasons, mainly misuse of the "general welfare", commerce, and "elastic clauses". As I've already shown in this thread, and as overwhelming contemporaneous evidence from the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution show, the original intention of these three clauses was not to, as many suggest, give broad room for the federal gov't to grow and expand; they each had their own purpose which has been distorted over time by court precedent (here I'm referring to the SC) and often times combined together to justify federal growth of power. Bearing in mind for the thousandth time that the SC gave itself the power of judicial review, and thus the power to interpret stuff in the Constitution that is not actually there and decide what is constitutional or not, if the three clauses mentioned above have been interpreted and expanded by the SC on the basis of a power it gave itself AND which was debated and deliberately left out of Article 3 by the founders because of its potential for abuse, logic would dictate that if these three clauses were used to justify the expanse of federal power to allow the individual mandate in the first place, then it is unconstitutional on those grounds alone.

"Are there States ready to drop all progressive federal programs on the issue of Constitutionality ? Is Medicare constitutional ? Do they want a halt to federal unemployment back-up cash?"

Now as for these questions:

1. The states should drop all progressive federal programs on the basis of constitutionality, though I realize that realistically, this will not ever happen because the States and the people are now dependent on this federal money, which may I say, was the original purpose of these programs in the first place, really at the heart of it - and it worked. These progressive federal programs should have never been done in the first place, but you can thank the courts for that. Oh and that's exactly why judicial review was left out of Article 3 to begin with: to guard against an arm of the gov't interpreting what ever it wanted in the Constitution, thus defeating the entire purpose of a Constitution.

2. Yes Medicare is unconstitutional, so is social security and medicaid and welfare. This does not mean I hate poor people (being poor myself and having grown up poor), minorities, children, women, or old people. It is simply a fact. I have consistently said on this board that these programs are unconstitutional, but I have a few points to make:

A.) just because something unconstitutional passed before and was never rescinded, that does not automatically make other unconstitutional laws perfectly legal. Medicare exists sure, and it is unconstitutional, and everyone who has it doesn't want to get rid of it (because they are dependent on it), BUT that DOES NOT mean that passing unconstitutional laws say next month is perfectly acceptable because of that fact, nor does the fact that people who have medicare like it automatically justify the program's existence if it is unconstitutional (which I maintain that it is). The States have the power under the 10th Amendment to do these type of social welfare/entitlement programs, the federal gov't does not, unless of course you take the SC's expanded definition and interpretation of the three aforementioned clauses and ignore the original intent of those clauses.

B.) There programs should be replaced with something at the state level or in the private sector and I've actually shot around a few of my ideas on this board before in other threads. I am not so naive as to believe that you could just end these programs that people have become dependent on and not transition people off of them and replace the programs with something else; I am making the technical argument that they are unconstitutional, that has nothing to do with the people on these programs or how I feel about them.

C.) The only reason many of these programs exist in the first place is because of Mr. FDR's attempted Court Packing Scheme. Had he not tried to intimidate the SC in the first place, many of his ideas (like Social Security, AAA, WPA, etc.) which were originally ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SC would have remained that way, and thus the great expansion of entitlements under LBJ would probably have never happened in the first place. Once that court precedent existed however and the expanded interpretation of those three aforementioned clauses occurred, there was really no turning back.

ericams2786 as always excellent points and presentations. To add to and reinforce your points and presentations I present the following.

The Conservative is an Originalist, for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation from societal experimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the constitution can be interpreted without abandoning it’s underlying principles altogether.

If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.

To say that the Constitution is a “living and breathing document” is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism. It is a mantra that gained purchase in the early 20th century and is paraded around by the Statist as if to legitimate that which is illegitimate.

The Conservative may ask the following questions: If words and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the Statist’s political and policy preferences, what then binds allegiance to the Statist’s words?
Why should today’s law bind future generations if yesterday’s law does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not? Why should any judicial determination based on a judge’s notion of what is ”right “or ”just” bind the individual if the individual believes the notion is wrong and unjust? Does not lawlessness beget lawlessness? Or is not the Statist really saying that the law is what he says it is, and that is the beginning and end of it? And if judges determine for society what is right and just, and if their purpose is to spread democracy or liberty, how can it be said that the judiciary is coequal with the executive or legislative branch?

The Statist considers the judiciary his clearest path to amassing authority, for through it he can proclaim what the law is without effective challenge or concern with the fleeting outcome of an election cycle.
Moreover, the federal judiciary is populated with about one thousand lawyers- and the Supreme Court a mere 9, making statist infiltration easy. Even when holding high office in the executive or legislative branches, the Statist today looks for ways to enhance judicial authority at the expense of his own branch, for in doing so he seeks to immunize his agenda from a possible change in public attitudes. And the Statist on the Court tolerates representative government only to the extent that it’s decisions reinforce his ends, Otherwise he overrules it.

In 1850 Frederic Bastiat, writing about the law, summed it up well:

When the law has exceeded it’s proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.
The law has been used to destroy its own objective. It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was suppose to maintain ; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and the property of others. It has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

Mark Levin from his book Liberty and Tyranny, chapter 4 “On The Constitution.”

Originally Posted by ericams2786

1. What part of this do you not understand? I never said the founders were perfect, ever. I never once made that claim. I said they wrote a document with a specific purpose that enumerated specific powers to the federal gov't and then they explained (through debates, essays, etc.) just exactly what they mean by these clauses that you think are open-ended and which have become "controversial". The ONLY reason they are "controversial" and "interpretable" is because ONCE AGAIN the SC gave itself the power of judicial review (historical fact) which then gave it the power to interpret and thus expand the meaning of these "clauses" which very clearly, once again by looking at the historical evidence contemporaneous to the time period, were not meant to be what you claim they are.

2. A good bit of what I linked where actual scholarly works, particularly the bit on the commerce and elastic clauses. Did you even read it? I don't think you need to be questioning someone's reading comprehension when you refuse to even link actual evidence backing your claims which clearly constitute nothing but your opinion.

3. Speaking of opinion, how the hell are the opinions of the founders not pertinent? THEY WROTE THE DAMN THING! Quite frankly, since they authored it (and I'm assuming they knew what they wrote, just like if you wrote an autobiography for instance, I'm sure you'd know more about what you are writing than I would), I'm going to have to go with their interpretation over that of some judge living in 2010. That's called common sense.

4. Skippy, it's pretty damn implied, when you tell someone to "go back to the 1st grade" that you are basically calling them an idiot.

5. I can't change the Constitution or amend it on my own, just like you can't so quit telling me to go "erase" it. If you don't like the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and the overwhelming contemporaneous historical evidence suggests that my argument as outlined throughout this thread is correct, then how about you change it through amendment?

6. Yes reality is: politicians manipulate and interpret the Constitution however they want to; this does not mean it is right, nor does it mean that the founders intended for this to happen.

7. Please provide some damn evidence already for your OPINION. It may sound funny to say shit like "dude, it's basic reading comprehension, go back to the 1st grade", but you only make yourself look bad by constantly dodging my questions and not defending your position with some actual evidence.

8. I never said that the 3/5 compromise was the morally right thing to do or that the compromise was necessarily a good thing, in fact I addressed this in my prior post. I was stating a fact; the 3/5 compromise wasn't created simply as a tool of racism. And no, of course the founders were not perfect or geniuses, I never claimed as much. I just simply said that they wrote the document that is the law of the land. They wrote it with a specific purpose and they very clearly, over years of debate, established that purpose and what parts of it meant. It's there GO READ IT. ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH, instead of you know just insulting other people's reading comprehension skills. Apparently you can't comprehend that paragraph from Federalist #41 for instance, as you completely ignored it, as you did everything else I posted in favor of distraction or purely your opinion.

Like I said dude, i've already quoted you chapter and verse. Go back and read it. Its sitting right there, like a fucking turd someone dropped on the dinner table. Again, if you can't understand the meaning of a sentence youve got bigger problems. And make no mistake, that (elastic clause) IS an open ended sentence that REQUIRES interpretation. General Welfare and Common defense, as well as "necessary and proper" mean different things to different people.

And again the OPINIONS of a FEW founders means little. Madison and Jefferson, while certainly involved and even integral to the Revolution and the establishment of american government, were by no means the sole authorities on how the law worked. No one was, because they'd just whipped it up and had never put it to a practical test (actually governing something). Washington literally set the standard for presidential behavior and norms, because he was the first. Same thing with the Judiciary giving itself judicial review. Someone DOES need to interpret the Constitution. Someone who ISN'T an elected politician who's trying to work an angle. Like a lifetime appointed judge who must be approved by congress. Its worked rather well for the past 250 or so years.

I don't have a problem with the Constitution being the law of the land. Quite the opposite in fact. I do have a problem with your erroneous interpretation though, as removing things like judicial review, and the more open ended clauses would effectively cripple our nation. This is not to say that I'm FOR Obama or Pelosi etc interpretation of the Constitution. I think entitlement programs push the boundries of what is "proper" in the "necessary and proper" clause that grants them their authority in the first place. (as its mostly redistribution of wealth, which is certainly not proper.)

I'm all for State and Individual rights, but that doesn't mean that the Federal government should be hamstrung. (centralized government is necessary, especially when youre talking about military action, which our nation engages in quite often).

Originally Posted by reality

Like I said dude, i've already quoted you chapter and verse. Go back and read it. Its sitting right there, like a fucking turd someone dropped on the dinner table. Again, if you can't understand the meaning of a sentence youve got bigger problems. And make no mistake, that (elastic clause) IS an open ended sentence that REQUIRES interpretation. General Welfare and Common defense, as well as "necessary and proper" mean different things to different people.

And again the OPINIONS of a FEW founders means little. Madison and Jefferson, while certainly involved and even integral to the Revolution and the establishment of american government, were by no means the sole authorities on how the law worked. No one was, because they'd just whipped it up and had never put it to a practical test (actually governing something). Washington literally set the standard for presidential behavior and norms, because he was the first. Same thing with the Judiciary giving itself judicial review. Someone DOES need to interpret the Constitution. Someone who ISN'T an elected politician who's trying to work an angle. Like a lifetime appointed judge who must be approved by congress. Its worked rather well for the past 250 or so years.

I don't have a problem with the Constitution being the law of the land. Quite the opposite in fact. I do have a problem with your erroneous interpretation though, as removing things like judicial review, and the more open ended clauses would effectively cripple our nation. This is not to say that I'm FOR Obama or Pelosi etc interpretation of the Constitution. I think entitlement programs push the boundries of what is "proper" in the "necessary and proper" clause that grants them their authority in the first place. (as its mostly redistribution of wealth, which is certainly not proper.)

I'm all for State and Individual rights, but that doesn't mean that the Federal government should be hamstrung. (centralized government is necessary, especially when youre talking about military action, which our nation engages in quite often).

1. Like I said dude, you didn't quote "chapter and verse" on a damn thing. I went through the entire thread and found literally one thing you quoted, Article 1 Section 8, which I've quoted just as much. I know how to read and ironically, speaking of reading comprehension skills, I'm the only one here who's really made an attempt to back up his position with, you know literature that one must read. Your silence on this issue (backing up your claims with actual evidence, especially evidence contemporaneous to the ratification of the Constitution) is deafening and does more to prove my point than ANYTHING I could possibly post on here.

2. Judges interpreting the Constitution HAS NOT worked well, that's why we are in the pickle we are in fiscally now, it's also why the gov't is so damn involved with everything in our lives.

3. The opinion of someone who lives in 2010, hasn't read a damn thing about the Constitution or those who founded it, and who had nothing to do with the crafting of the Constitution (as those founders that you so nonchalantly ignore did) means little.

4. I have problems with yours- and others - erroneous interpretations. In fact it's because of erroneous interpretations like yours that we have the problems in this country that we have. Simpy looking at the language and saying "gees I bet it says what it says!" or "hey let's see the authors of the Constitution said it means this... I bet that's what it means" is not interpretation, it's fucking common sense...and logical.

"I think entitlement programs push the boundries of what is "proper" in the "necessary and proper" clause that grants them their authority in the first place. (as its mostly redistribution of wealth, which is certainly not proper.)"

So why is it that entitlements push the boundaries of the necessary and proper clause? Perhaps because it was misinterpreted and abused by the SC to justify the creation of progressive entitlements that redistribute wealth? You just admitted that you at least feel somewhat the same as I do about this. Why is this so hard to understand if you literally just said a microcosm of what I've been saying all along!?! You THINK it pushes the boundaries BECAUSE IT DOES!

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Congratulations on being the first person to actually attempt to back up your argument with some type of evidence or supporting arguments.

Now that said, the opinion of a legal scholar living today on the topic of the health care bill and taxes is not necessary evidence of the "flexible" or "you can interpret what ever you want in the Constitution and this was the original intent of the people who wrote it" position, but fair enough. I'll address your source in a minute, but first let me say that what you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand: the original intent of the founders and whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" that changes according to social whims or that it enumerates specific powers to the federal gov't for the purpose of limiting its power and maximizing liberty.

Now as to your quote:

Yes the federal gov't has the power to tax. I am dubious as to whether or not the individual mandate is simply just a tax, but of course in admitting it is a tax, one is also admitting that Obama DID raise taxes, and yes on the middle class as well. BUT, I actually never once mentioned that the health care bill is unconstitutional on grounds of the individual mandate (though it might very well be), I maintain that it is unconstitutional for other reasons, mainly misuse of the "general welfare", commerce, and "elastic clauses". As I've already shown in this thread, and as overwhelming contemporaneous evidence from the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution show, the original intention of these three clauses was not to, as many suggest, give broad room for the federal gov't to grow and expand; they each had their own purpose which has been distorted over time by court precedent (here I'm referring to the SC) and often times combined together to justify federal growth of power. Bearing in mind for the thousandth time that the SC gave itself the power of judicial review, and thus the power to interpret stuff in the Constitution that is not actually there and decide what is constitutional or not, if the three clauses mentioned above have been interpreted and expanded by the SC on the basis of a power it gave itself AND which was debated and deliberately left out of Article 3 by the founders because of its potential for abuse, logic would dictate that if these three clauses were used to justify the expanse of federal power to allow the individual mandate in the first place, then it is unconstitutional on those grounds alone.

"Are there States ready to drop all progressive federal programs on the issue of Constitutionality ? Is Medicare constitutional ? Do they want a halt to federal unemployment back-up cash?"

Now as for these questions:

1. The states should drop all progressive federal programs on the basis of constitutionality, though I realize that realistically, this will not ever happen because the States and the people are now dependent on this federal money, which may I say, was the original purpose of these programs in the first place, really at the heart of it - and it worked. These progressive federal programs should have never been done in the first place, but you can thank the courts for that. Oh and that's exactly why judicial review was left out of Article 3 to begin with: to guard against an arm of the gov't interpreting what ever it wanted in the Constitution, thus defeating the entire purpose of a Constitution.

2. Yes Medicare is unconstitutional, so is social security and medicaid and welfare. This does not mean I hate poor people (being poor myself and having grown up poor), minorities, children, women, or old people. It is simply a fact. I have consistently said on this board that these programs are unconstitutional, but I have a few points to make:

A.) just because something unconstitutional passed before and was never rescinded, that does not automatically make other unconstitutional laws perfectly legal. Medicare exists sure, and it is unconstitutional, and everyone who has it doesn't want to get rid of it (because they are dependent on it), BUT that DOES NOT mean that passing unconstitutional laws say next month is perfectly acceptable because of that fact, nor does the fact that people who have medicare like it automatically justify the program's existence if it is unconstitutional (which I maintain that it is). The States have the power under the 10th Amendment to do these type of social welfare/entitlement programs, the federal gov't does not, unless of course you take the SC's expanded definition and interpretation of the three aforementioned clauses and ignore the original intent of those clauses.

B.) There programs should be replaced with something at the state level or in the private sector and I've actually shot around a few of my ideas on this board before in other threads. I am not so naive as to believe that you could just end these programs that people have become dependent on and not transition people off of them and replace the programs with something else; I am making the technical argument that they are unconstitutional, that has nothing to do with the people on these programs or how I feel about them.

C.) The only reason many of these programs exist in the first place is because of Mr. FDR's attempted Court Packing Scheme. Had he not tried to intimidate the SC in the first place, many of his ideas (like Social Security, AAA, WPA, etc.) which were originally ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SC would have remained that way, and thus the great expansion of entitlements under LBJ would probably have never happened in the first place. Once that court precedent existed however and the expanded interpretation of those three aforementioned clauses occurred, there was really no turning back.

Where I'm coming from:

Especially Limited to Article One sections One through Eight including clauses.

Our Constitution was an experimental document introducing beg borrowed and stolen features constructed by some good minds in a sequence that would allow for significant change if desired in an orderly manner of virtually anything contained within it save the Bill of Rights (The first ten amendments).

Article One Section Eight Clause One IS one of the enumerations (Not a preamble) describing the most major powers given Congress;
"Lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, pay debts, Provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; (with a notation that duties Imposts and Excises must be uniform through the United States;

( Leaving open and subject to the will of the elected representatives foreseeing time and circumstances might well call for change)

Clauses two through seventeen do not repeat modify or enlarge upon powers in clause one but rather list in order of importance descriptions of other powers so bestowed

(Each clause ending with a semi-colon indicating a stand alone statement yet attached to that which preceded lt)

Clause eighteen of course gives Congress the power to make laws that shall be necessary and proper to exercise the foregoing etc.etc. ending such clause with the only period in the Section.

Our world has changed and to the best of a conglomeration of minds pro and con as to the validity of such change so has our constitution been bent to comply with the needs present and future. At the moment it is the Supreme Court that will make the decision. ( The buck has to stop somewhere. )

The diminishing prospects for using yesteryears exploitation measures to shore up todays capitalistic system are fading. One more big war and we're all toast>
s