The Constitution Mandates That The Federal Government Be A Fraction Of What It is.

[Bill]

So it seems we've come full circle. I argued we should have a good network of roads to travel the country, I don't want the Federal government to own all the local roads. You objected to that. I asked what you mean, now you seem to be back to what I said in the first place ...

Now you're getting somewhere......

Often "stiff" Libertarians (not saying him per se) tend to do that..

George, Jefferson, Madison etc would be against building roads for the general welfare, defense & use of citizens, eventhough they would be paying for it... Probably just a big plot by auto makers & used car salesmen....

 

[Robo]

Government specified how the congress and president would operate and government is being built through that Constitutional process. What's the problem?

The problem is government hasn't and isn't "being built" through any kind of constitutional process.

Article one section eight enumerates the powers assigned to the Congress by the Constitution and Article two section one enumerates the powers assigned to the President by the Constitution. There's no power enumerated and assigned to either to distribute federal taxpayer's dollars throughout the States for infrastructure projects. Amendment 10 makes it perfectly clear that those projects are a power belonging to the States.

Work harder to get out the vote to have government do what you think it should, or shouldn't, do. You're not calling for activist courts to do it for you, are you?

We could work ourselves to death attempting to get out a pertinent vote in the duopoly's rigged elections to achieve any change resembling constitutional righteousness. The 2 party racket operates the BIGGEST government money can buy. We have a duopoly dictatorship and a government of the bribery, by the bribery and for the bribers!

 

[Robo]

the whole regulating interstate commerce was to prevent state monopolies and higher tax rates against disliked states, not to denote how, why, where, and when roads must be built and maintained because 'commerce!!!!!!'

and dispense with the hyperbole, it's like you want to go back to muskets and flintlocks.

The BIG government hacks can and will stretch the General Welfare and regulating commerce clauses 50 miles or whatever they can get away with or until the federal government has total control of everything whichever comes first.

 

[Robo]

Roads have nothing to do with the "Commerce Clause," they are directly in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

And arguing that peripherals like bridges and tunnels aren't part of "roads" is like arguing that bullets are not covered by the second amendment, just guns

That power is only for the feds to decide where the post offices will be located and which roads shall be postal routs. It offers NO power to build the roads!

 

[Robo]

Of course it's a living document. The founders didn't imagine we'd live like we did in the eighteenth century.

So what are you claiming is not a "post road" then? To me, only roads on private property are not "post roads"

The Constitution isn't a living document relative to expanding interpretations of what is otherwise literal meanings of its written words. If you argue that the Constitution is a living document relative to it's Article 5, i.e. the amendment process you'd have an argument except there's been no amendments since 1992. Therefor the Constitution is either dead or in a severe coma. Considering its hundreds of violations since 1992 by the powers that be, dead seems the better bet.

 

[Zake]

The BIG government hacks can and will stretch the General Welfare and regulating commerce clauses 50 miles or whatever they can get away with or until the federal government has total control of everything whichever comes first.

Building up the poor in this country from being receivers of Federal money to being contributors to society and becoming taxpayers is clearly in the general interest no matter how much you like hyperbole. That is the problem I want to address. All conservatives have is you fought accomplishing doing that successfully for 50 years and we need to give up now

 

[Zake]

The Constitution isn't a living document relative to expanding interpretations of what is otherwise literal meanings of its written words. If you argue that the Constitution is a living document relative to it's Article 5, i.e. the amendment process you'd have an argument except there's been no amendments since 1992. Therefor the Constitution is either dead or in a severe coma. Considering its hundreds of violations since 1992 by the powers that be, dead seems the better bet.

There's a fundamental difference between Article 5 and the role of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.

Article 5 is to change the Constitution. For example, the 14th Amendment gave citizens Constitutional rights from their State governments. That was a new, Constitutional right.

The Supreme Court just looks at the rights we have in terms of things changing over time and applying the rights we already have in new ways the founders could never have dreamed of. For example, clearly the Constitution greatly protects our privacy. But how would the founders have had any idea of computers and spying? In their day, there were no phones, e-mail, texting. The court is simply telling government you need a warrant for that too. Consider two scenarios:

1) Government goes to the phone company and listens to your calls
2) Government uses electronic equipment to listen to your conversations standing on the street

Neither of those are directly covered in the Constitution. Someone has to clarify based on what they said 240 years ago to today.

Consider your car. It's your car, it's on a public, government road. Can government require a license? There was no such thing. Can they give you a breathalizer test without probable cause. Can they look through the window and see something suspicious without a warrant? Can they search your trunk?

Again, to say you just apply a centuries old document they never dreamed of those things to today without interpreting where the line is in the spirit of what they wrote is just a fantasy, it's not possible to do without someone to say where the line is.

 

[Zake]

That power is only for the feds to decide where the post offices will be located and which roads shall be postal routs. It offers NO power to build the roads!

"Establishing" roads is identifying them not building them? The English language doesn't support that assertion, either identifying or building is "establishing."

So seriously, you don't think the national network of highways makes your life better? You really do want outhouses back, don't you?

 

[Bill]

"Establishing" roads is identifying them not building them? The English language doesn't support that assertion, either identifying or building is "establishing."

So seriously, you don't think the national network of highways makes your life better? You really do want outhouses back, don't you?

Well obviously the forefathers were anti-roads & had they been able to foresee the modern automobile they would have most certainly frown upon it..

 

[Zake]

Well obviously the forefathers were anti-roads & had they been able to foresee the modern automobile they would have most certainly frown upon it..

Yes, the John Birch society wants to go back to birch johns. I love to travel. I travel frequently for both work and leisure. I've been in every State except Alaska. Ironic since I love winter sports, but I will get there and soon. Conservatives just want a shrinking world where they don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born and they don't meet anyone new. Just keep the gays, illegals and Muslims out of their town and that's all they need or want

 

[Bill]

Yes, the John Birch society wants to go back to birch johns. I love to travel. I travel frequently for both work and leisure. I've been in every State except Alaska. Ironic since I love winter sports, but I will get there and soon. Conservatives just want a shrinking world where they don't travel more than a few miles from where they were born and they don't meet anyone new. Just keep the gays, illegals and Muslims out of their town and that's all they need or want

Not really all conservatives, it is the stiff libertarians..

Dumb asses wanna legalize drugs & outlaw highways.

The modern highways system we all enjoy (except during peak commute times in civilized areas) was thnX to our Uncle Ike, a republican..

Taking care of roads & bridges has never been a partisan issue, until lately..

Our parents & grandparents paid very high taxes so that we could have good, safe roads & bridges & these fools would watch them crumble rather than pay a few bucks to maintain them for our kids & grandkids... The epitome of selfishness..

 

[Zake]

Not really all conservatives, it is the stiff libertarians..

Dumb asses wanna legalize drugs & outlaw highways.

The modern highways system we all enjoy (except during peak commute times in civilized areas) was thnX to our Uncle Ike, a republican..

Taking care of roads & bridges has never been a partisan issue, until lately..

Our parents & grandparents paid very high taxes so that we could have good, safe roads & bridges & these fools would watch them crumble rather than pay a few bucks to maintain them for our kids & grandkids... The epitome of selfishness..

I agree except on the drugs. We could get the people who don't hurt anyone out of prison and keep the ones who do hurt other people in. But yeah, they don't seem to have any interst in being able to leave their home town. It's probably all those foreigners they run into when they do. They have to keep up the hysterical fear of outsiders and roads and bridges just help outsiders find them

 

[Bill]

I agree except on the drugs. We could get the people who don't hurt anyone out of prison and keep the ones who do hurt other people in. But yeah, they don't seem to have any interst in being able to leave their home town. It's probably all those foreigners they run into when they do. They have to keep up the hysterical fear of outsiders and roads and bridges just help outsiders find them

I added the drugs for emphasis, I totally agree the draconian laws need to be changed.....

 

[Zake]

I added the drugs for emphasis, I totally agree the draconian laws need to be changed.....

For sure. I have no sympathy for drug dealers. But putting someone in prison for putting drugs in their own body is just insane to me

 

[Bill]

For sure. I have no sympathy for drug dealers. But putting someone in prison for putting drugs in their own body is just insane to me

Yes it is, almost as bad as the federal gubment building highways to the beach or Lake Tahoe, evil I tell yea.lmao

 

[Zake]

Yes it is, almost as bad as the federal gubment building highways to the beach or Lake Tahoe, evil I tell yea.lmao

Laughing, yeah, all those roads, it need to be stopped!

 

[Robo]

Building up the poor in this country from being receivers of Federal money to being contributors to society and becoming taxpayers is clearly in the general interest no matter how much you like hyperbole. That is the problem I want to address. All conservatives have is you fought accomplishing doing that successfully for 50 years and we need to give up now

"Building up the poor" has never been successfully done by handing out other people's money to them. All that does is assure their reliance on the robbery of government. Limiting the excesses of BIG government and expecting limited government to stay out of the way with taxation and regulation and thereby allowing the private sector to create the economic conditions that offer a higher standard of living for all and oppertunities for the poor to get rich. That's how success is produced.

 

[Robo]

There's a fundamental difference between Article 5 and the role of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.

Article 5 is to change the Constitution. For example, the 14th Amendment gave citizens Constitutional rights from their State governments. That was a new, Constitutional right.

The Supreme Court just looks at the rights we have in terms of things changing over time and applying the rights we already have in new ways the founders could never have dreamed of. For example, clearly the Constitution greatly protects our privacy. But how would the founders have had any idea of computers and spying? In their day, there were no phones, e-mail, texting. The court is simply telling government you need a warrant for that too. Consider two scenarios:

1) Government goes to the phone company and listens to your calls
2) Government uses electronic equipment to listen to your conversations standing on the street

Neither of those are directly covered in the Constitution. Someone has to clarify based on what they said 240 years ago to today.

What you describe is nicely covered in Amendment 4. JUST GET A WARRANT following the directions in amendment 4.

Consider your car. It's your car, it's on a public, government road. Can government require a license?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10)

There was no such thing. Can they give you a breathalizer test without probable cause. Can they look through the window and see something suspicious without a warrant? Can they search your trunk?

Constitutionally, see amendment 4.

Again, to say you just apply a centuries old document they never dreamed of those things to today without interpreting where the line is in the spirit of what they wrote is just a fantasy, it's not possible to do without someone to say where the line is.

You've posted nothing that isn't covered by that "centuries old document!" "The Line" begins and ends with the literal text of the Constitution and not with the rubber-band, elastic corrupt imaginations of crooked political ideologues.

 

[Robo]

"Establishing" roads is identifying them not building them? The English language doesn't support that assertion, either identifying or building is "establishing."

When you want to travel by land to someplace do you use a map to ESTABLISH the route you will follow? Do you have to build the roads and bridges? If you plan to stay at a motel/hotel along the way, Do you ESTABLISH which one you will stay at? Do you have to build the motel/hotel?

So seriously, you don't think the national network of highways makes your life better?

Of course and it should have and could have been constructed by the States and localities and maintained by same CONSTITUTIONALLY or an amendment to the Constitution should have been offered, passed and ratified before the federal government had any part in it.

You really do want outhouses back, don't you?

I hate to burst your bubble, (no I don't,)modern plumbing was not invented and constructed by government!

 

[F_Donald_Weldon]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

The 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear that only the things enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government are authorized for the feds to do. Otherwise, such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The States and the people are responsible for their State and local infrastructure and thereby the nation’s infrastructure through interstate cooperation.

The federal government’s overriding, avoiding and ignoring the Constitution is why America has a 20 trillion dollar national debt and it’s exploding annually. The federal government should be a fraction of what it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

You’re wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)).

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” (United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941))

The Constitution in fact authorizes the Federal government to spend taxpayers’ money on the National infrastructure, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation.

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

You stand corrected.