Is The Democrat's Agenda Working Out, Or Is It The Democrat's Death Nail?

"The courts have become a bastion of partisan politicized hacks. The Supreme Court sets aside the Constitution in favor of its own political ideology."

People have been saying that since the founding of the Republic WHEN they disagree with a given USSC decision. You believe that your "strict constructionist" arguments are NOT political? Come on. If it was up to you we would be constantly amending the Constitution to get anything done. Not only is that impractical, but unnecessary and not what our Founders envisioned. There are all sorts of broad powers that the federal government has.

What specifically is the outrageous injustice being done to the US citizen by the feds which you wish to abolish, or require an amendment to the Constitution for? How is it that the entire USSC has been nothing but political hacks since its inception?

Are you outraged by not following process, or about specific outcomes?

And by the way, I applaud your seriousness about the Constitution. I think there needs to be a serious Constitution party in America which also appreciates the government's need to "promote the general welfare." There has been since our inception a balance and friction between what government can and should do, versus what citizens must and can do alone.
 
The American economy is producing more than it ever has!
The market doubled under Obama
Conservatards are pissing their pants.
Yes it's working better than planned
 
Oh, to answer some specifics:

“The Congress shall have the power….to raise and support armies….” (Article One Section Eight, United States Constitution)

The GI Bill is one of the "social programs" you are so upset about and has virtually nothing to do with raising and supporting an army. It's always going to be "in the red," because it is money directly given as a thank you to veterans, but also an investment in their education and ability to contribute. Some might even call this..."Socialism!"

"Why shouldn’t banks provide their own insurance and oversight without the federal government or the Constitution be amended to authorize the Congress to insure and oversee banks? Why shouldn’t the States and the people have their say by ratification in such actions?"

First of all, the federal government does have the right to regulate interstate commerce and commerce within the states, which is exactly what federal oversight of banking does. So case closed.

But are you kidding about having banks regulate themselves? How ahistoric and naive about human nature! With few exceptions, most every single banking crisis in the United States - all which directly affected the "general welfare" of all Americans - has been self-inflicted and has been because bankers, being people, are blind to their own folly and greed. It's like saying "Why can't NFL players regulate themselves? Why do we need referees?" God man, look at the history of booms and busts in the banking system and Wall Street, including the recent one which almost brought down the entire world's economy, not just the US's.

“The Congress shall have the power to…. establish post roads…..{Article One Section Eight, United States Constitution)

Is the massive US interstate system merely "post roads"? A lot of strict Constitutionalists back in Ike's day thought not. And what about the guy in rurual Colorado who has to pay the same federal taxes towards this highway system where the bulk of travel is done in major metropolitan areas? Fair or unfair, or is it just the price of being a citizen of the entire United States?

"Why shouldn’t private industry subsidize their privately owned and operated rail systems? Why shouldn’t the States subsidize their own water treatment and delivery grids? Why should New York tax payers be forced to subsidize actions of other States and vise-versa? Why shouldn’t the Constitution be amended to authorize such actions for the federal government if the States and the people believe it to be advantageous and proper?"

Because it was too expensive to build their own rail systems, "the general welfare" had an interest in having large, comprehensive and safe rail, and if we had left it up to them we not only would not have had the robust rail systems which took us through the 19th and 20th Centuries, but they would be unsafe and impractical. Rail companies, being in it for profit, have no interest in spending money making their systems safe..until some massive accident occurs. They also have no interest in building lines which go to less profitable (more remote) areas, but there is a general interest in those areas being served.

Same with the electrical grid and water plants. We've seen here in California what happens when the government gets out of the business of subsidizing - and therefore gives up the right to mandate certain requirements of - the power companies: black outs that disrupt the entire economy. Also, electricity and water travel across state lines for the purposes of commerce, which the federal government has an interest and right to regulate.

Big federal regulations, as stupid as they often are, are put in place to create uniformity across the nation, and reduce chaos between the states. And ironically, they have given a lot more power to small rural states. It is a federal requirement that rural areas have electricity and internet connections, as one example. It in essence keeps our country from being a patchwork of isolated provinces, bullied by the bigger, more urban ones.

Before we had modern, interventionist federal government, the American economy was in a constant boom-bust-boom cycle; there were massive and socially destabilizing chasms between the rich and powerful and every day Americans - which lead to a lot of demands for genuine communism and socialism...

I agree that we should have some amendment providing for NASA, NIH, Education and many other Departments, and many departments should be chucked all together. I just think you take a good idea way too far, and don't appreciate nearly how important our overbearing, Big Government federal bureaucracy has been to our nation.
 
Falcon said:
"The courts have become a bastion of partisan politicized hacks. The Supreme Court sets aside the Constitution in favor of its own political ideology."

People have been saying that since the founding of the Republic WHEN they disagree with a given USSC decision. You believe that your "strict constructionist" arguments are NOT political? Come on.
Click to expand...

Oh hell no! The Constitution is a “political” document. Strict constructionism is a very, very “political” ideology. The point of my argument pertaining to the Supreme Court is the fact that those seated on same are sworn to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the ”Constitution” and thereby the strict “political” construction thereof and not to be involved in and aligned with the right/left perversions of constitutional scripture.

If it was up to you we would be constantly amending the Constitution to get anything done. Not only is that impractical, but unnecessary and not what our Founders envisioned. There are all sorts of broad powers that the federal government has.
Click to expand...

On the contrary! Most of what the federal government is doing can be and should be done by the States and or the people themselves. There are FEW actual amendments needed and we’ve had over 200 years to make them, NASA is just one example. States could have originated a “State” Social Security program if they wanted. States could have their own State welfare programs if they want them. The people can provide for their own retirement and healthcare and education of their children or States could provide those programs if they wanted them. It goes on and on and on. States can write their own regulations and decide the taxation for whatever they want. The federal government is the absolute worst social engineer and the 17 trillion $ national debt, the pathetic oversight of programs and the waste and corruption therewith is the proof of it.

What specifically is the outrageous injustice being done to the US citizen by the feds which you wish to abolish, or require an amendment to the Constitution for? How is it that the entire USSC has been nothing but political hacks since its inception?
Click to expand...

17 trillion $ of national debt from unconstitutional federal welfare and subsidy programs and undeclared, unconstitutional wars and unconstitutional prohibitions on a supposed free people to decide for themselves what they will and will not do with and put into their own bodies. The feds are the greatest of child abusers indebting our future generations as far as the eye can see.

And by the way, I applaud your seriousness about the Constitution. I think there needs to be a serious Constitution party in America which also appreciates the government's need to "promote the general welfare." There has been since our inception a balance and friction between what government can and should do, versus what citizens must and can do alone.
Click to expand...

As Jefferson nicely articulated, the “general welfare” is,

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent ENUMERATIONSof power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)
 
Falcon said:
Oh, to answer some specifics:

“The Congress shall have the power….to raise and support armies….” (Article One Section Eight, United States Constitution)

The GI Bill is one of the "social programs" you are so upset about and has virtually nothing to do with raising and supporting an army. It's always going to be "in the red," because it is money directly given as a thank you to veterans, but also an investment in their education and ability to contribute. Some might even call this..."Socialism!"
Click to expand...

But government itself is a “social program.” It’s a program to establish “social law.” To “SUPPORT and army” can constitutionally include whatever is “necessary and proper.” (article One, Section 8, last paragraph) Would you deny the army pay? Would you deny the army “benefits?” Isn’t health care for the army and education “necessary and proper?” One surely can make a damn good argument that benefits for military veterans who serve their country sure as hell ARE necessary and proper and I have no problem with it from a constitutional or moral perspective or any perspective, do you?

"Why shouldn’t banks provide their own insurance and oversight without the federal government or the Constitution be amended to authorize the Congress to insure and oversee banks? Why shouldn’t the States and the people have their say by ratification in such actions?"
Click to expand...

Why shouldn’t the banks be regulated by the States? Where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to bail out banks?
First of all, the federal government does have the right to regulate interstate commerce and commerce within the states, which is exactly what federal oversight of banking does. So case closed.
Click to expand...

And you’re calling bailing out banks regulating commerce, right?

But are you kidding about having banks regulate themselves? How ahistoric and naive about human nature! With few exceptions, most every single banking crisis in the United States - all which directly affected the "general welfare" of all Americans - has been self-inflicted and has been because bankers, being people, are blind to their own folly and greed. It's like saying "Why can't NFL players regulate themselves? Why do we need referees?" God man, look at the history of booms and busts in the banking system and Wall Street, including the recent one which almost brought down the entire world's economy, not just the US's.
Click to expand...

Where did I say banks should regulate themselves?

The greed and folly of the banks is the direct result of the federal government’s ineptitude to regulate and the banking/government “good ole boy” system. Banking greed and folly is stimulated and encouraged by bankers understanding that if they’re BIG enough and connected enough with government they’ll be bailed out by their good ole boy government for whatever stupidity they perpetrate. Aside from that the federal government encouraged the sub-prime loans that banks were making as far back as the Clinton administration. If the federal government had stayed out of the banking business bankers would have thought twice before piling on those sub-prime loans they were selling to Fannie & Freddie, that unholy banking conspiracy between government and private banking. Furthermore if banks couldn’t be “unconstitutionally” bailed out, they’d assess their risk much, much more closely.
Click to expand...
 
Classic Liberal said:
Oh hell no! The Constitution is a “political” document. Strict constructionism is a very, very “political” ideology. The point of my argument pertaining to the Supreme Court is the fact that those seated on same are sworn to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the ”Constitution” and thereby the strict “political” construction thereof and not to be involved in and aligned with the right/left perversions of constitutional scripture.



On the contrary! Most of what the federal government is doing can be and should be done by the States and or the people themselves. There are FEW actual amendments needed and we’ve had over 200 years to make them, NASA is just one example. States could have originated a “State” Social Security program if they wanted. States could have their own State welfare programs if they want them. The people can provide for their own retirement and healthcare and education of their children or States could provide those programs if they wanted them. It goes on and on and on. States can write their own regulations and decide the taxation for whatever they want. The federal government is the absolute worst social engineer and the 17 trillion $ national debt, the pathetic oversight of programs and the waste and corruption therewith is the proof of it.



17 trillion $ of national debt from unconstitutional federal welfare and subsidy programs and undeclared, unconstitutional wars and unconstitutional prohibitions on a supposed free people to decide for themselves what they will and will not do with and put into their own bodies. The feds are the greatest of child abusers indebting our future generations as far as the eye can see.



As Jefferson nicely articulated, the “general welfare” is,

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent ENUMERATIONSof power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)
Click to expand...

That's merely Jefferson's opinion. No more, no less.

However, In United States v. Butler, the SCOTUS reaffirmed Hamilton's all-encompassing vision of general welfare, making your point moot.

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Falcon said:
“The Congress shall have the power to…. establish post roads…..{Article One Section Eight, United States Constitution)

Is the massive US interstate system merely "post roads"? A lot of strict Constitutionalists back in Ike's day thought not. And what about the guy in rurual Colorado who has to pay the same federal taxes towards this highway system where the bulk of travel is done in major metropolitan areas? Fair or unfair, or is it just the price of being a citizen of the entire United States?
Click to expand...

And the strict constitutionalist of Ike’s day would have had a pretty good argument except for the fact that “the mail” travels over every road the feds authorize as a post road which the Constitution gives them the right to do. I submit that the mail travels over every Interstate Highway System in these United States, do you know differently?

"Why shouldn’t private industry subsidize their privately owned and operated rail systems? Why shouldn’t the States subsidize their own water treatment and delivery grids? Why should New York tax payers be forced to subsidize actions of other States and vise-versa? Why shouldn’t the Constitution be amended to authorize such actions for the federal government if the States and the people believe it to be advantageous and proper?"

Because it was too expensive to build their own rail systems, "the general welfare" had an interest in having large, comprehensive and safe rail, and if we had left it up to them we not only would not have had the robust rail systems which took us through the 19th and 20th Centuries, but they would be unsafe and impractical. Rail companies, being in it for profit, have no interest in spending money making their systems safe..until some massive accident occurs. They also have no interest in building lines which go to less profitable (more remote) areas, but there is a general interest in those areas being served. Same with the electrical grid and water plants. We've seen here in California what happens when the government gets out of the business of subsidizing - and therefore gives up the right to mandate certain requirements of - the power companies: black outs that disrupt the entire economy. Also, electricity and water travel across state lines for the purposes of commerce, which the federal government has an interest and right to regulate.
Click to expand...

Horseshit! I repeat Jefferson’s quote about the “general welfare.”

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)

Big federal regulations, as stupid as they often are, are put in place to create uniformity across the nation, and reduce chaos between the states. And ironically, they have given a lot more power to small rural states. It is a federal requirement that rural areas have electricity and internet connections, as one example. It in essence keeps our country from being a patchwork of isolated provinces, bullied by the bigger, more urban ones.

Before we had modern, interventionist federal government, the American economy was in a constant boom-bust-boom cycle; there were massive and socially destabilizing chasms between the rich and powerful and every day Americans - which lead to a lot of demands for genuine communism and socialism...

I agree that we should have some amendment providing for NASA, NIH, Education and many other Departments, and many departments should be chucked all together. I just think you take a good idea way too far, and don't appreciate nearly how important our overbearing, Big Government federal bureaucracy has been to our nation.
Click to expand...

Well friend we’ll surely see if I’ve taken it to far in the future. Again I’ll give you Too BIG to fail, 17 trillion $ national debt, endless undeclared wars, more and more petty prohibitive laws being forced on us every day, thousands and thousands of pages of regulations and laws that politicians don’t even bother to read before the vote on them, unelected bureaucrats writing laws and regulations, federal programs with unfunded future liabilities in the hundreds of trillion of $, A world police force, nation building, welfare payments to countries that hate our guts, the endless attempts to trash our second amendment rights, millions and millions of undocumented immigrants sucking the welfare tit, virtually every federal social program in the red ink and artificially low interest rates forcing investments into a good old boy stock market, crony government/Wall Street bail outs and advantageous legislation and regulation for the BIGGEST Wall Street corporations that crushes smaller competition and on and on and on.

You have a twisted and biased view of the “general welfare” clause friend. If all of the above and more is IN the general welfare, you coulda fooled me! The house of BIG government cards will implode! The only questions are what will replace it and will it be a bloody or a peaceful revolution?
 
Howey said:
That's merely Jefferson's opinion. No more, no less.

However, In United States v. Butler, the SCOTUS reaffirmed Hamilton's all-encompassing vision of general welfare, making your point moot.
Click to expand...

My point is only moot to idiots that think Hamilton was anything more than a BIG government authoritarian wonk. Such a wonk that he promoted the idea that a British Prince should be imported by the Congress to be “King Of America.” He and Adams were the only two federalist to serve in high offices of trhe government. Jefferson and the Republicans took over the government after the Adams disaster and the Federalist Party died the death it deserved until it was resurrected by the likes of the progressives Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and modern day leftist Democrats.

There’s actually no sane or rational argument to oppose Jefferson’s interpretation of the “general welfare” clause and no leftist today has the balls to even try to rationally answer the questions Jefferson’s definition poses, like what can’t the federal government do and not claim it to be in the general welfare if Hamilton’s version is correct? Of what value is the rest of the Constitution if Hamilton’s version is correct? Why doesn’t Hamilton’s definition of the general welfare in effect render all of the Constitution null and void except for the general welfare clause? Why did the writers of the Constitution waste so much paper and ink on the Constitution when they could have as Jefferson noted simply written a single clause, i. e. the “general welfare clause?” Why did the writers of the Constitution bother to enumerate the powers of Congress and the rest of the federal government then in a single clause, i. e. the general welfare clause then trump every article and amendment whereby the powers of the federal government had been enumerated?

Only Jefferson’s definition of the general welfare clause makes any sense and rationality.

The Supreme Court doesn’t rationally decide what is actually constitutional. The Supreme Court is made up of political ideologues, appointed by political ideologues and confirmed by political ideologues. Supreme Court decisions only reflect the ideology of the majority of the wonks that sit on the Court. Their loyalties are to their ideology and not the Constitution to which they are sworn.

Howey said:
Said as the idiot fastens the blinders on tightly in order to not see my post proving him wrong.
Click to expand...

The only thing you have ever proven is your lack of respect for and inability of rationality and of course your relentless desire to be willfully stupid and a loyal brain-dead partisan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top