Congressman to Acting Speaker: "This is why the people threw you out of power"

• I Wear Pants

  Don't forget highways, it says nothing of highways.
  
  Some people would have us adhere so strictly to what they believe the constitution says that they would oppose many of the policies and works that helped build us into the power that we are today.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;584604 wrote:Where in the Constitution, specifically, does the document grant the authority to Congress to Tax citizens in order to Spend it on the creation of Nuclear Weapons?

  The constitution does not. New technologies do not dissolve strict adherence to the constitution and make it a worthless document. Our founders were wise and provided us with a means to adapt to unforeseen changes in the future. Its called the amendment process. Whats the big deal with using it?
  
  At the time of the ratification of the constitution, there were only two forms that a state could project its military power. The army and the navy. Under section 8 of the constitution how the army and navy were to be funded by congress were constitutionally defined. The navy had no restrictions on how congress funded it. The army however had constitutional restrictions. A two year limit on appropriation of federal funds. The reasoning behind this restriction was because an army was the states ability to project its power through out the nation. The navy at that time and today is by its very nature limited in its projection of power.
  
  Advances in technology have brought us a new branch of military power. The air force. I would ask you under the amendment process what state would not grant congress the power to maintain an air force for our mutual defense? The answer is none. The problem is that because the air force was not created constitutionally through the amendment process its funding by congress is under no constitutional limits like that of the army. It is by default financed like the naval branch.
  
  The states never had a chance to decide whether the air force should be funded like the navy or limited like the army.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;584646 wrote:The constitution does not. New technologies do not dissolve strict adherence to the constitution and make it a worthless document. Our founders were wise and provided us with a means to adapt to unforeseen changes in the future. Its called the amendment process. Whats the big deal with using it?
  
  At the time of the ratification of the constitution, there were only two forms that a state could project its military power. The army and the navy. Under section 8 of the constitution how the army and navy were to be funded by congress were constitutionally defined. The navy had no restrictions on how congress funded it. The army however had constitutional restrictions. A two year limit on appropriation of federal funds. The reasoning behind this restriction was because an army was the states ability to project its power through out the nation. The navy at that time and today is by its very nature limited in its projection of power.
  
  Advances in technology have brought us a new branch of military power. The air force. I would ask you under the amendment process what state would not grant congress the power to maintain an air force for our mutual defense? The answer is none. The problem is that because the air force was not created constitutionally through the amendment process its funding by congress is under no constitutional limits like that of the army. It is by default financed like the naval branch.
  
  The states never had a chance to decide whether the air force should be funded like the navy or limited like the army.

  
  You don't think the taxing and spending clause means anything? You think, that even though the drafters to chose to add the words "...provide for the defense..." that, even with that phrase having a common understanding to the people around in 1787, that that is not a power granted to the Congress? You're the one advocating strict adherence to the Constitution, but it seems to me you've glossed over this phrase.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;585037 wrote:You don't think the taxing and spending clause means anything? You think, that even though the drafters to chose to add the words "...provide for the defense..." that, even with that phrase having a common understanding to the people around in 1787, that that is not a power granted to the Congress? You're the one advocating strict adherence to the Constitution, but it seems to me you've glossed over this phrase.

  Congress has the power to tax and spend within those enumerated in article section 8 of the constitution. Tax and spend is not a separate. Congress cannot tax and spend on whatever, whenever, and however the damn well please. It means a lot, just not anything.
  
  If the drafters of the constitution had simply stated "to provide for a common defense" and left it at that, congress would not be limited in how or what is taxes and spends for common defense. But they chose to separate defense into two known branches at that time. They chose to put a 2yr time restriction on one branch. Congress has a limit placed on how it can spend funds for that branch. Over a century later congress sees the need to create a 3rd branch. Now where in the constitution does it tell us if this new branch should have the 2yr limit or have no limits like the navy?
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;585183 wrote:Congress has the power to tax and spend within those enumerated in article section 8 of the constitution. Tax and spend is not a separate. Congress cannot tax and spend on whatever, whenever, and however the damn well please. It means a lot, just not anything.
  
  If the drafters of the constitution had simply stated "to provide for a common defense" and left it at that, congress would not be limited in how or what is taxes and spends for common defense. But they chose to separate defense into two known branches at that time. They chose to put a 2yr time restriction on one branch. Congress has a limit placed on how it can spend funds for that branch. Over a century later congress sees the need to create a 3rd branch. Now where in the constitution does it tell us if this new branch should have the 2yr limit or have no limits like the navy?

  
  You agree that the enumerated powers begin with the Taxing and Spending Clause. Yet, you do not agree that "...provide for defense..." is an enumerated power of Congress and that the enumerated powers begin after this.
  
  How can you say that the power to Tax is an enumerated power and that providing for defense is not? The drafters used the coordinating conjunction "and" (which presents non-contrasting ideas) when they wrote the phrase:
  
  "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....;"
  
  This grammar expresses the same idea as the following
  
  To lay and collect taxes etc. to pay the debts
  
  To lay and collect taxes to provide for defense
  
  To lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare.
  
  If you accept that Congress has the power to Tax as expressed by that phrase; grammar, as it was perfectly understood at the time of its drafting requires this understanding of the clause.
  
  The fact that it is later enumerated that the Congress may raise an Army and a Navy does not preclude "providing for defense" from being an additional enumerated power as Armies and Navies do other things beyond merely defending a nation such as invading other sovereign nations, etc.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm of the view that Constitutional law should be left to those who, you know study Constitutional law, ie legal scholars, courts, etc. as they have the full history, Supreme Court rulings, case law and historical trends that are missing here.
  
  But, that is just me.
• I Wear Pants

  Does anyone that posts here do that?
  
  Because they could be really helpful.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;586155 wrote:Does anyone that posts here do that?
  
  Because they could be really helpful.

  
  I think majorsparks knows it as well as anybody along with the historical viewpoints of our founders. Back to ptown....I don't think it was written so that only the elite educated could read and understand it. It was written for the people. If peeps couldn't understand it, then how were they able to mass enough armies to defeat the British war machine? Remember, the Brits were the superpower in the 18th century, so the founders needed as much help as they could muster. Writing something that only a few could figure out or understand would have been a disaster if they wanted to win.
• BoatShoes

  ptown_trojans_1;586152 wrote:I'm of the view that Constitutional law should be left to those who, you know study Constitutional law, ie legal scholars, courts, etc. as they have the full history, Supreme Court rulings, case law and historical trends that are missing here.
  
  But, that is just me.

  
  Well I've cited United States v. Butler before which endorsed the view that the general welfare clause was a separate and distinct enumerated power among other sources but MajorSpark and many conservatives generally feel that the Courts and Congress have misinterpreted the constitution and illegally expanded power and therefore I don't see it to be much use to cite to such authorities in this debate.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;586175 wrote:I think majorsparks knows it as well as anybody along with the historical viewpoints of our founders. Back to ptown....I don't think it was written so that only the elite educated could read and understand it. It was written for the people. If peeps couldn't understand it, then how were they able to mass enough armies to defeat the British war machine? Remember, the Brits were the superpower in the 18th century, so the founders needed as much help as they could muster. Writing something that only a few could figure out or understand would have been a disaster if they wanted to win.

  
  Huh? After war the founders created the Articles of Confederation, which was a huge failure as it gave states too much power. As a result, the most influential people of the founders met and hammered out the Constitution over a few months, but even then those guys were smart as hell.
  
  However, keep in mind, the Constitution is a living document, so there are many cases and laws that go alongside it that complete the picture of what is and what is not Constitutional.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;586181 wrote:Well I've cited United States v. Butler before which endorsed the view that the general welfare clause was a separate and distinct enumerated power among other sources but MajorSpark and many conservatives generally feel that the Courts and Congress have misinterpreted the constitution and illegally expanded power and therefore I don't see it to be much use to cite to such authorities in this debate.

  
  I'm no lawyer, but the word "promote" does not equal the word "provide". As long as words mean things as defined by a dictionary and people can read, then the government should never be given the power to provide the general welfare. If you are going to cite more court cases that say these two words mean the same thing, then I would be interested to see how Webster got translated by a judge.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;586190 wrote:Huh? After war the founders created the Articles of Confederation, which was a huge failure as it gave states too much power. As a result, the most influential people of the founders met and hammered out the Constitution over a few months, but even then those guys were smart as hell.
  
  However, keep in mind, the Constitution is a living document, so there are many cases and laws that go alongside it that complete the picture of what is and what is not Constitutional.

  
  My point was if you are going to have a revolution and you would enjoy a victory, you better be able to mass an army/navy large enough to beat the best war machine in the business. You wrote that the Constitution should only be studied by scholars, students and those that study everything about it. I'm saying that it was not written in such a way that ONLY the elite scholars and acadaemia could understand it because they had to use it in order to form a more perfect union. In order to form it, they needed support and only appealing to a small portion of the populace would equal failure. That's all I'm sayin. I know there are many that consider it a "living document" and I say it is just the opposite...it is our rock and our foundation as a country. It is solid. If it was indeed living and fluid, then it would be weak and subject to whomever is in "power" at the time. This was not the founder's intent.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  ptown_trojans_1;586152 wrote:I'm of the view that Constitutional law should be left to those who, you know study Constitutional law, ie legal scholars, courts, etc. as they have the full history, Supreme Court rulings, case law and historical trends that are missing here.
  
  But, that is just me.

  Ooohhhhhhh, you mean people like President Obama???
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;586190 wrote:Huh? After war the founders created the Articles of Confederation, which was a huge failure as it gave states too much power. As a result, the most influential people of the founders met and hammered out the Constitution over a few months, but even then those guys were smart as hell.
  
  However, keep in mind, the Constitution is a living document, so there are many cases and laws that go alongside it that complete the picture of what is and what is not Constitutional.

  
  The "living document" thingy bothers me. Interpretations of the Constitution are "living" and adjust to the times, but too many people use the "living document" argument to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;586192 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but the word "promote" does not equal the word "provide". As long as words mean things as defined by a dictionary and people can read, then the government should never be given the power to provide the general welfare. If you are going to cite more court cases that say these two words mean the same thing, then I would be interested to see how Webster got translated by a judge.

  
  You're thinking of the preamble. The word "provide" is in Article I, Sec. 8 which I quoted above.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;586130 wrote:You agree that the enumerated powers begin with the Taxing and Spending Clause. Yet, you do not agree that "...provide for defense..." is an enumerated power of Congress and that the enumerated powers begin after this.
  
  How can you say that the power to Tax is an enumerated power and that providing for defense is not? The drafters used the coordinating conjunction "and" (which presents non-contrasting ideas) when they wrote the phrase:
  
  "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States....;
  
  The first clause is an introductory clause enumerating for us congress's basic power (taxation) the means by which any other enumerated power is able to be accomplished. It also requires equal treatment of the taxing and spending power. To pay for and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. In other words congress cannot use the enumerated power of taxation to the benefit of one state over the other. Or provide unequal defense of one state over another. It has to be qualified as taxing and spending for the common defense and general welfare of the whole United States.
  
  Now given in the 1st clause congress has the power to tax and spend. They must do it equally in order to provide for the general welfare of all states. The must do it in order to provide a common defense. That said in the initial clause of article I section 8, the following clauses enumerate and qualify the powers congress has and how they can tax and spend on them.
  
  This grammar expresses the same idea as the following
  
  To lay and collect taxes etc. to pay the debts
  
  To lay and collect taxes to provide for defense
  
  To lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare.
  
  If you accept that Congress has the power to Tax as expressed by that phrase; grammar, as it was perfectly understood at the time of its drafting requires this understanding of the clause.
  
  The fact that it is later enumerated that the Congress may raise an Army and a Navy does not preclude "providing for defense" from being an additional enumerated power as Armies and Navies do other things beyond merely defending a nation such as invading other sovereign nations, etc.

  
  The first clause is an introductory clause enumerating for us congress's basic power (taxation) the means by which any other enumerated power is able to be accomplished. It also requires equal treatment of the taxing and spending power. It must be to pay for and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. In other words congress cannot use the enumerated power of taxation to the benefit of one state over the other. Or provide unequal defense of one state over another. It has to be qualified as taxing and spending for the common defense and general welfare of the whole United States.
  
  Now given in the 1st clause congress has the power to tax and spend, and it requires they must do it equally in order to provide for the general welfare of all states, and to provide for a common defense. As I said these are qualifying statements not separate powers. That said in the initial clause of article I section 8 it has limits in how it can use that power, the following clauses enumerate and detail the powers congress has and if they need to tax and spend in order to fulfill them refer to the 1st clause in article 1 section 8 and how that power is required to be used.
  
  Then we have the summary clause of article on section 8; 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.
  
  The final clause contextually defines itself within the boundary of the forgoing enumerated powers. Congress is not unlimited in passing laws it sees as necessary and proper. Only those necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers given to congress under article I section 8.
  
  Why even enumerate the other powers between the 1st clause and the last? What would be the purpose? You refuse to acknowledge the body of article 1 section 8. Or the whole context of the section for that matter. I'll tell you why. Because it would limit congress's power. By taking the 1st and last clauses out of context and focusing on them congress is virtually unlimited in its authority. Only a presidential veto or supreme court ruling would stand in the way.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;583046 wrote:Our federal government has become a joke. It is high time for a revolution. I am not advocating a violent one. Hopefully the people will rise up and demand peaceful revolutionary change. I for one am sick of these clowns. They are leading us into financial ruin and behave like fools on the floor of our legislature. This is not the first time. I have little faith that the current crop recently elected will bring the needed change.
  
  Maybe some states should divorce themselves from this insanity. I don't no what it will take. Some major change has to happen. Disgusting.
  
  God save the republic.

  
  I Believe it is impossible to have a radical change without a revolution and I also don't believe a "peaceful, quiet" revolution will do anything to change the system. As Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots every generation".
  
  I believe he meant that quite literally. It is always in government's nature to try to assume more power. Just look at it happen right in front of us these days.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;583046 wrote:Our federal government has become a joke. It is high time for a revolution. I am not advocating a violent one. Hopefully the people will rise up and demand peaceful revolutionary change. I for one am sick of these clowns. They are leading us into financial ruin and behave like fools on the floor of our legislature. This is not the first time. I have little faith that the current crop recently elected will bring the needed change.
  
  Maybe some states should divorce themselves from this insanity. I don't no what it will take. Some major change has to happen. Disgusting.
  
  God save the republic.

  dwccrew;588130 wrote:I Believe it is impossible to have a radical change without a revolution and I also don't believe a "peaceful, quiet" revolution will do anything to change the system. As Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots every generation".
  
  I believe he meant that quite literally. It is always in government's nature to try to assume more power. Just look at it happen right in front of us these days.

  
  I'm not advocating violence by any means, I just don't believe a "quiet, peaceful" revolution would solve anything. No one can even define what a "peaceful" revolution is or what it would be.