PDA

View Full Version : The Tenth Amendment



ConHog
06-17-2012, 08:22 PM
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.

Probably one of the more controversial Amendments as many seem to believe that it means unless something is SPECIFICALLY listed in the COTUS that means the federal government can't do it, when clearly that is not the case.

Strangely enough , it usually works out that what people claim the government can't do is what they don't want the government to do while at the same time being okay with the government doing things they want them to do.

fj1200
06-18-2012, 07:48 AM
Probably one of the more controversial Amendments as many seem to believe that it means unless something is SPECIFICALLY listed in the COTUS that means the federal government can't do it, when clearly that is not the case.

You've just described the should be scenario not the is scenario. Isn't everything the Federal government does Constitutional at least by some definition?

revelarts
06-18-2012, 11:17 AM
:facepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99::f acepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99:



...Probably one of the more controversial Amendments as many seem to believe that it means unless something is SPECIFICALLY listed in the COTUS that means the federal government can't do it, when clearly that is not the case.

Obviously it's not "clearly not the case" if "many" understand it to mean what you outlined.
I'm one of the many , any normal reading of those words gives you that meaning, I think it's even clearer than the 2nd amendment.



Isn't everything the Federal government does Constitutional at least by some definition?
Cough!!! What?

FJ c'mon that's Nixon talking. "It's not illegal if the president does it." That's King Louie Speaking "It's good to be the King".

here's a basic concept gentlemen. the LAW is KING.
the Constitution is the highest law in the land it means what the founders intended to mean.
If the people in Gov't breaks the Law it is a crime JUST THE SAME as if a lowly citizen breaks the Law. and the Constitution Is LAW mainly RESTRAINING Gov't. It is specific to the FEDERAL gov't
so if it goes outside it's clearly outlined boundaries it is breaking the law no matter what badges, titles or uniforms the people are wearing claim.

fj1200
06-18-2012, 03:32 PM
Cough!!! What?

FJ c'mon that's Nixon talking. "It's not illegal if the president does it." That's King Louie Speaking "It's good to be the King".

here's a basic concept gentlemen. the LAW is KING.
the Constitution is the highest law in the land it means what the founders intended to mean.
If the people in Gov't breaks the Law it is a crime JUST THE SAME as if a lowly citizen breaks the Law. and the Constitution Is LAW mainly RESTRAINING Gov't. It is specific to the FEDERAL gov't
so if it goes outside it's clearly outlined boundaries it is breaking the law no matter what badges, titles or uniforms the people are wearing claim.

It was a question offered in the great Socratic method of inquiry. Show me a law that is unconstitutional and is not being challenged in the courts. You may have different opinions on constitutionality but the question remains.

Nixon. :slap:

ConHog
06-18-2012, 03:37 PM
:facepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99::f acepalm99::facepalm99::facepalm99:




Obviously it's not "clearly not the case" if "many" understand it to mean what you outlined.
I'm one of the many , any normal reading of those words gives you that meaning, I think it's even clearer than the 2nd amendment.



Cough!!! What?

FJ c'mon that's Nixon talking. "It's not illegal if the president does it." That's King Louie Speaking "It's good to be the King".

here's a basic concept gentlemen. the LAW is KING.
the Constitution is the highest law in the land it means what the founders intended to mean.
If the people in Gov't breaks the Law it is a crime JUST THE SAME as if a lowly citizen breaks the Law. and the Constitution Is LAW mainly RESTRAINING Gov't. It is specific to the FEDERAL gov't
so if it goes outside it's clearly outlined boundaries it is breaking the law no matter what badges, titles or uniforms the people are wearing claim.


Seriously?

EPA - Constitutional, or not?
Highways- Constitutional, or not?
FDA- Constitutional, or not?

and right on down the line with things that are NOT specifically mentioned in the COTUS but which are CLEARLY constitutional.

revelarts
06-18-2012, 05:19 PM
It was a question offered in the great Socratic method of inquiry. Show me a law that is unconstitutional and is not being challenged in the courts. You may have different opinions on constitutionality but the question remains.

Nixon. :slap:

Yes Nixon.

There are probably thousands of laws that have not been challenged that are unconstitutional.
Do you really want me to give you a list,
I drove past the airport the other day... TSA





Seriously?

EPA - Constitutional, or not?
Highways- Constitutional, or not?
FDA- Constitutional, or not?

and right on down the line with things that are NOT specifically mentioned in the COTUS but which are CLEARLY constitutional.

EPA - Constitutional, or not? NOT
Highways- Constitutional, or not? hmm Not
FDA- Constitutional, or not? To be Frank umm it's Not.

The thing that's clear is that we have them now. And we think we'd be hard press to live without um.
But in any normal reading of the Constitution the Fed Gov't doesn't have any of those powers/authority.

If they are Constitutional give me the sections in the constitution where they come from.
I'll wait.

ConHog
06-18-2012, 06:17 PM
Yes Nixon.

There are probably thousands of laws that have not been challenged that are unconstitutional.
Do you really want me to give you a list,
I drove past the airport the other day... TSA






EPA - Constitutional, or not? NOT
Highways- Constitutional, or not? hmm Not
FDA- Constitutional, or not? To be Frank umm it's Not.

The thing that's clear is that we have them now. And we think we'd be hard press to live without um.
But in any normal reading of the Constitution the Fed Gov't doesn't have any of those powers/authority.

If they are Constitutional give me the sections in the constitution where they come from.
I'll wait.


Really?

Hmmm I believe the EPA and teh FDA are BOTH essential to well being of this nation. Disagree? Go to Mexico City for a week and see if you can survive the smog and dysentery caused by no oversight of clean air or safe foods.

Highways? Clearly created for national defense purposes.

Thanks for proving my point

revelarts
06-18-2012, 06:21 PM
Really?

Hmmm I believe the EPA and teh FDA are BOTH essential to well being of this nation. Disagree? Go to Mexico City for a week and see if you can survive the smog and dysentery caused by no oversight of clean air or safe foods.

Highways? Clearly created for national defense purposes.

Thanks for proving my point

So your point was they are Not Constitutional but we need them so it doesn't matter.

ConHog
06-18-2012, 06:25 PM
So your point was they are Not Constitutional but we need them so it doesn't matter.

no my point is they ARE constitutional.

The federal government is clearly empowered to oh let's see regulate interstate trade? Provide for national defense? Provide for the general welfare of the country?

fj1200
06-19-2012, 12:43 AM
Yes Nixon.

There are probably thousands of laws that have not been challenged that are unconstitutional.
Do you really want me to give you a list,
I drove past the airport the other day... TSA

:rolleyes: I think most of us are aware of youropinion of what is constitutional versus not.


EPA - Constitutional, or not? NOT
Highways- Constitutional, or not? hmm Not
FDA- Constitutional, or not? To be Frank umm it's Not.

The thing that's clear is that we have them now. And we think we'd be hard press to live without um.
But in any normal reading of the Constitution the Fed Gov't doesn't have any of those powers/authority.

If they are Constitutional give me the sections in the constitution where they come from.
I'll wait.

Commerce Clause.

logroller
06-19-2012, 02:37 AM
:rolleyes: I think most of us are aware of youropinion of what is constitutional versus not.



Commerce Clause.

Litigating interstate horse-trade disputes...that's it.:coffee:

Roo
06-19-2012, 05:55 PM
The misinterpretation of the 10th began in 1937....

revelarts
06-19-2012, 06:50 PM
the much abused commerce clause , you can drive an aircraft carrier through some folks interpretation of it.

You can't walk your dog
commerce clause: you BOUGHT the dog right, it had shots the shots came from out of state ergo facto presto?
Your Fence is to high
commerce clause: you BOUGHT the fence correct, do you know what state the woods from hmmm?
EPA
commerce clause: people BUY things from the factories that pollute and the pollution crosses state lines, am i right?

the anti federalist warned that that clause would be one cause for a lot of problems from ambitious congress people to grow the power of gov't. and you guys love it.

Maybe you guys should call it the Santa Claus because it gives the congress ANY powers you want the way you guys read it.
others don't see it the way you guys do,

In United States v Lopez1 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F1), for the first time in sixty years, the Supreme Court of the United States held a statute to be unconstitutional because it exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause2 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F2). In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas offered a critique of contemporary Commerce Clause doctrine--based on the original meaning of the clause--that went well beyond the majority opinion. According to Justice Thomas, "at the time the original Constitution was ratified, 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes."3 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F3) He also cited the etymology of the word, which literally means "with merchandise."4 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F4) He then noted that "when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably."5 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F5) The term "commerce," according to Justice Thomas, "was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture."6 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F6)
In his opinion, Justice Thomas endorsed the view of the meaning of "commerce" that the Supreme Court of the Progressive Era used to strike down various regulations of economic activity7 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F7). In cases such as United States v E.C. Knight Co8 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F8), the Court distinguished "commerce" from manufacturing or agriculture, and held that the regulation of either manufacturing or agriculture exceeded the powers of Congress under the clause9 (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#F9). ....

http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm

that's just one, there are others but an honest historical interpretation of the Clause WILL NOT give you an EPA or many other federal agencies and laws.
The Federal Gov't was never granted the authority by the people.

revelarts
06-20-2012, 08:27 AM
I have to Correct myself, the anti federalist didn't predict the commerce clause would be a problem. they thought General welfare would be the -congress can do anything clause-. And there's another sections where they thought might be used similarly I've been trying to remember but It won't come to me. (EDIT: the "Necessary and Proper clause")

But here's quick run down of the original intent of the commerce clause and how the supreme court let/helped it get out of hand.


2. The Commerce Clause

There has probably been no more insidious and far-reaching example of the Supreme court’s ability to “enlarge the sphere” of Federal power than their rulings on the meaning of “The Commerce Clause”. It turned out to be the most gaping loophole in the entire Constitution, what law school professors refer to as “The Everything Clause.” It is so broad a power, that it now grants to the Federal Government the power to regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce. But what did it mean originally? Let us examine this question, beginning with the clause itself, from Article 1, Section 8:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
At the time the Constitution was drafted, the power to regulate interstate commerce was understood to mean the right to impose tariffs on imports and exports. That’s it. Nothing more. The Framers gave this power to the Federal Legislature in order to promote harmony among the states by preventing interstate trade wars. James Madison summed it up in Federalist #42:

A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity…
… The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.


The Commerce Clause, then, had one distinct purpose—to prevent states from imposing tariffs on imports and exports from other states, in order to “provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States,” as Madison characterized it. It was basically a free trade agreement among the states.

The Commerce Clause today, after nearly two centuries of Federal Judicial interpretation, goes far beyond its original meaning and intent. It now includes the power to prevent interstate tariffs and trade wars, it includes the power to regulate any activity, commercial or not, interstate or intrastate. It doesn’t even have to have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.” The court merely has to decide that there is a “rational basis” for thinking that an activity has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, for that activity to fall under the power granted by the Commerce Clause. It is, indeed, the Everything Clause.

How did we get so far from its original, limited meaning? By the powers granted to the Federal Judiciary in Article 3, Section 2. As predicted in Anti-Federalist Paper 82:

They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one.
Law students could rattle off the landmark cases: Gibbons v Ogden, Swift v United States, Wickard v Fillburn. Case by case, precedent by precedent, the meaning was stretched like silly putty. Meatpackers fell under Commerce Clause power, because “although their activity was geographically "local," they had an important effect on the "current of commerce". Stockyards were subject to federal regulation, because they were “a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows.”

The climax of this expansion of Federal power was Wickard v Fillburn, a New Deal era case which proclaimed:

But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”

In Wickard, the government was asserting its power to restrict the production of wheat. They were trying to raise wheat prices by reducing the supply by fiat. They asserted that even if someone was growing wheat to feed their own animals—it was not moving across state lines, it was not being sold—it still fell under the Commerce Clause regulatory power because it had a “substantial effect” on wheat supply generally. ...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2363918/posts

pretty sad isn't it?
Or do you agree with the court and congress that --"whatever its nature" congress can reach it-- is an honest reading of the clause?

ConHog
06-20-2012, 09:19 AM
I have to Correct myself, the anti federalist didn't predict the commerce clause would be a problem. they thought General welfare would be the -congress can do anything clause-. And there's another sections where they thought might be used similarly I've been trying to remember but It won't come to me. (EDIT: the "Necessary and Proper clause")

But here's quick run down of the original intent of the commerce clause and how the supreme court let/helped it get out of hand.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2363918/posts

pretty sad isn't it?
Or do you agree with the court and congress that --"whatever its nature" congress can reach it-- is an honest reading of the clause?

Rev, like I said in another thread, fond memories aside, the founding fathers weren't perfect. In fact the COTUS is pretty poorly written in areas and hard to know what they really meant. So yes, you are right, sometimes people jam stuff in and interpret the COTUS to make it fit; but on the other hand you have to admit that sometimes people like you use the ambiguity to claim that things that most people accept as constitutional are not constitutional.

Take the EPA , for example. It's pretty clear that the EPA didn't just spring out of thin air, rather it came about for a reason. That reason being that states were fighting about pollution that was crossing state lines.

You keep saying it is a local problem, but I would suggest that CA would have a legitimate beef that it is not a local problem if Washington is letting companies dump waste into the river water and that waste is migrating to CA drinking supply; just as an example. that makes it interstate commerce

revelarts
06-20-2012, 09:44 AM
Rev, like I said in another thread, fond memories aside, the founding fathers weren't perfect. In fact the COTUS is pretty poorly written in areas and hard to know what they really meant. So yes, you are right, sometimes people jam stuff in and interpret the COTUS to make it fit; but on the other hand you have to admit that sometimes people like you use the ambiguity to claim that things that most people accept as constitutional are not constitutional.

Take the EPA , for example. It's pretty clear that the EPA didn't just spring out of thin air, rather it came about for a reason. That reason being that states were fighting about pollution that was crossing state lines.

You keep saying it is a local problem, but I would suggest that CA would have a legitimate beef that it is not a local problem if Washington is letting companies dump waste into the river water and that waste is migrating to CA drinking supply; just as an example. that makes it interstate commerce

I never said EPA came out of thin Air or that the constitution was perfect, however the FFs did make a provision for adding powers they did not include in the cotus. It's called adding amendments. So rather than shoe horning pollution control laws into "commerce" (ha!), an amendment should have been written to give congress power to make laws dealing with pollution. And we both know the EPA probably assumes that whether or not it crosses state lines significantly or has to do with biz it's still under their purview. so the interstate bit is really just a handle to try to make it look legit.

fj1200
06-20-2012, 09:53 AM
I never said EPA came out of thin Air or that the constitution was perfect, however the FFs did make a provision for adding powers they did not include in the cotus. It's called adding amendments. So rather than shoe horning pollution control laws into "commerce" (ha!), an amendment should have been written to give congress power to make laws dealing with pollution. And we both know the EPA probably assumes that whether or not it crosses state lines significantly or has to do with biz it's still under their purview. so the interstate bit is really just a handle to try to make it look legit.

That's ridiculous. You don't make amendments every time the Constitution isn't specific to a particular problem. At some point you need to trust that elected officials can make necessary laws especially where "commerce" crosses state borders and state disputes will occur.

ConHog
06-20-2012, 09:54 AM
I never said EPA came out of thin Air or that the constitution was perfect, however the FFs did make a provision for adding powers they did not include in the cotus. It's called adding amendments. So rather than shoe horning pollution control laws into "commerce" (ha!), an amendment should have been written to give congress power to make laws dealing with pollution. And we both know the EPA probably assumes that whether or not it crosses state lines significantly it's still under their purview. so the interstate bit is really just a handle to make it look legit.

Oh come on Rev. That is unsustainable model of inefficiency. You want the government to try to add a COTUS amendment for every government initiative that some people declare is unconstitutional? You only think the government gets nothing done now.

The Founding Fathers certainly didn't believe that was necessary. Did T Jefferson get a constitutional amendment allowing him to send Marines to Tripoli? Why not? I certainly don't see anywhere in the COTUS where the President has the authority to send Marines to Africa to stop Piracy.

The founders actually thought that amendment should be added sparingly, as they have been.

revelarts
06-20-2012, 10:17 AM
That's ridiculous. You don't make amendments every time the Constitution isn't specific to a particular problem. At some point you need to trust that elected officials can make necessary laws especially where "commerce" crosses state borders and state disputes will occur.

And people say they want a small federal gov't..
The FFs tried to make it difficult for the federal gov't to grow. Difficult but not impossible.
Commerce was NEVER intended to be a get out the Constitution free clause. A catch all for new powers. Any honest reading makes that clear. As uncomfortable as that might be for law makers, that's the way it is (or should be).

So yes, you DO make amendments if the issue is important enough for the feds to have some control, if not, Guess what the federal gov't stay the heck out of it.
Seems to me it's only ridiculous if people believe the federal gov't HAS TO patrol every nook and cranny of life.
What's ridiculous is how far the clause has been stretched to accommodate any freaking power the congress and Prez decide they want.

again current exhibited 'A' Obamacare,
tell me, do you think that is covered under commerce as well? drugs are sold across state lines, hospitals equipment bought out of state, dr's are educated in other states and pay tutitions across state lines, medical research is down out of state, organ donations cross state lines ,germs come from other states... etc

revelarts
06-20-2012, 10:22 AM
Oh come on Rev. That is unsustainable model of inefficiency. You want the government to try to add a COTUS amendment for every government initiative that some people declare is unconstitutional? You only think the government gets nothing done now.

The Founding Fathers certainly didn't believe that was necessary. Did T Jefferson get a constitutional amendment allowing him to send Marines to Tripoli? Why not? I certainly don't see anywhere in the COTUS where the President has the authority to send Marines to Africa to stop Piracy.

The founders actually thought that amendment should be added sparingly, as they have been.

Tripoli was a hard case, but did ,at least , have to do directly with international trade, but it's not strictly constitutionally your right.

But the federal gov't was never intended to have a government initiative every 5 minutes for everything under the sun.

the states were suppose to handle their own affairs, similar to small countries, which a the time they were.

fj1200
06-20-2012, 10:27 AM
And people say they want a small federal gov't..
The FFs tried to make it difficult for the federal gov't to grow. Difficult but not impossible.
Commerce was NEVER intended to be a get out the Constitution free clause. A catch all for new powers. Any honest reading makes that clear. As uncomfortable as that might be for law makers, that's the way it is (or should be).

So yes, you DO make amendments if the issue is important enough for the feds to have some control, if not, Guess what the federal gov't stay the heck out of it.
Seems to me it's only ridiculous if people believe the federal gov't HAS TO patrol every nook and cranny of life.
What's ridiculous is how far the clause has been stretched to accommodate any freaking power the congress and Prez decide they want.

again current exhibited 'A' Obamacare,
tell me, do you think that is covered under commerce as well? drugs are sold across state lines, hospitals equipment bought out of state, dr's are educated in other states and pay tutitions across state lines, medical research is down out of state, organ donations cross state lines ,germs come from other states... etc

Of course they can institute HC "reform" and regulate it, the Obamacare argument is different as that compels activity. Your desire for an amendment process for "important" issues is overwishing when it comes to what Congress is authorized to do. If the people really wanted a small government then they would elect representatives to keep it small. Do I wish it were smaller? Yes, but doesn't mean that the document won't be read by some to justify expansion.

revelarts
06-20-2012, 10:39 AM
Of course they can institute HC "reform" and regulate it, the Obamacare argument is different as that compels activity. Your desire for an amendment process for "important" issues is overwishing when it comes to what Congress is authorized to do. If the people really wanted a small government then they would elect representatives to keep it small. Do I wish it were smaller? Yes, but doesn't mean that the document won't be read by some to justify expansion.

That the document won't be Misread by some to justify expansion, you mean.

The Constitution is where the restraints come in.
the FFs didn't trust to people to elect or the representatives to be willing to or able to restrain themselves from expanding the powers of the federal gov't. Thats why they wrote it so narrowly.
That's one of the points of a Constitutional Republic, vs a full on democracy.
the FFs were EXTEMELY concerned about exactly what has happened and what you just described. the federl gov't expanding powers willy nilly ever time it gets an itch and twisting out constitutional interpretation to justify themselves.
But, As pointed out in my earlier post, they never thought commerce would be the hole in the wall though. because it simply does not mean what you say it means.

fj1200
06-20-2012, 02:24 PM
That the document won't be Misread by some to justify expansion, you mean.

You're projecting again. You, and I sometimes, might say misread but those who like the expansion certainly don't. I think the restrictive commerce definition is a bit naive in a modern interconnected country. I personally think that while many things are constitutional the intervention by government fiat is unproductive and leads to unintended consequences.

revelarts
06-20-2012, 02:44 PM
You're projecting again. You, and I sometimes, might say misread but those who like the expansion certainly don't. I think the restrictive commerce definition is a bit naive in a modern interconnected country. I personally think that while many things are constitutional the intervention by government fiat is unproductive and leads to unintended consequences.

Sayin you think it's Naive is fine,
Sayin you think it's restrictive is fine,
But trying to say that the Constitution honestly allows for the EPA and many other items is just untrue.

If Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin etc.. (not Hamilton he was a big gov't proponent)
If they where here do you think that would explain the Commerce clause to cover the EPA?
A yes or no would be great here. I just get weary with lame semi-legal dodges. I mean It's OK to say --I think the EPA, dept of education, dept of energy, welfare, etc do some good--- i might agree, but just don't expect me to agree with the cognitive dissidence that's says they are constitutional as well.

That emperor's got no clothes man

"the intervention by government fiat is unproductive and leads to unintended consequences."

agreed.

fj1200
06-21-2012, 08:17 AM
But trying to say that the Constitution honestly allows for the EPA and many other items is just untrue.

Opinion is opinion.

revelarts
06-21-2012, 08:54 AM
Opinion is opinion.

in this case our legal opinions (constitutional interpretations) are based on the facts and text of the law
or our opinions based on current assumed needed/wanted outcomes.

I believe the former is the honest way to read the law, where we go from there (as I've said in other threads) is another story.
But its hard form me to deal with lawyers who want to read laws and ask things like
"it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is."

ConHog
06-21-2012, 09:33 AM
in this case our legal opinions (constitutional interpretations) are based on the facts and text of the law
or our opinions based on current assumed needed/wanted outcomes.

I believe the former is the honest way to read the law, where we go from there (as I've said in other threads) is another story.
But its hard form me to deal with lawyers who want to read laws and ask things like
"it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is."

Rev, come on.

Let me ask you. Do you think state pollution agencies are illegal power grabs?

revelarts
06-21-2012, 10:18 AM
in this case our legal opinions (constitutional interpretations) are based on the facts and text of the law
or our opinions based on current assumed needed/wanted outcomes.

I believe the former is the honest way to read the law, where we go from there (as I've said in other threads) is another story.
But its hard form me to deal with lawyers who want to read laws and ask things like
"it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is."
Rev, come on.

Let me ask you. Do you think state pollution agencies are illegal power grabs?

Is what i wrote incorrect?

if the law says it's illegal to drive over 55, does it mean 80 is OK all the time if it's a good thing, is that how we should read it? is that opinion valid?

you guys refuse to answer strait questions like that and keep appealing to outcomes and Motives. WHY not just read the law. the Constitution. lets agree on what it says then MAYBE we can talk honestly about what we can do from there until them your just blowing smoke.

ConHog
06-21-2012, 10:52 AM
Is what i wrote incorrect?

if the law says it's illegal to drive over 55, does it mean 80 is OK all the time if it's a good thing, is that how we should read it? is that opinion valid?

you guys refuse to answer strait questions like that and keep appealing to outcomes and Motives. WHY not just read the law. the Constitution. lets agree on what it says then MAYBE we can talk honestly about what we can do from there until them your just blowing smoke.

What? We had a thread discussing exactly that in fact , somewhere around here and I answered the question point blank. No, it would NOT be okay. that law has no interpretation. The only thing left for interpretation is did the accused in fact speed?

But of course the COTUS is a different animal and can be interpreted differently by different people, that is why we have courts.

fj1200
06-21-2012, 02:22 PM
If they where here do you think that would explain the Commerce clause to cover the EPA?
A yes or no would be great here.

Yes, when the effects of commerce, pollution, become interstate.


in this case our legal opinions (constitutional interpretations) are based on the facts and text of the law
or our opinions based on current assumed needed/wanted outcomes.

I believe the former is the honest way to read the law, where we go from there (as I've said in other threads) is another story.
But its hard form me to deal with lawyers who want to read laws and ask things like
"it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is."

Who disagrees with that? The problem is that reading the law is not plainly clear. Because it doesn't say "EPA" does not mean the EPA is unconstitutional. If you want the representatives of the States, read Senators, then you need to repeal the 17th and require that they be appointed by the states.

ConHog
06-21-2012, 02:25 PM
Yes, when the effects of commerce, pollution, become interstate.



Who disagrees with that? The problem is that reading the law is not plainly clear. Because it doesn't say "EPA" does not mean the EPA is unconstitutional.

Rev plainly disagrees. He's flat out stated he believes that there should be an Amendment passed for every little thing. Even though the founding fathers themselves did things which were not PLAINLY written in the COTUS - IE sending Marines to Tripoli to beat a little pirate ass.

fj1200
06-21-2012, 02:28 PM
Rev plainly disagrees. He's flat out stated he believes that there should be an Amendment passed for every little thing. Even though the founding fathers themselves did things which were not PLAINLY written in the COTUS - IE sending Marines to Tripoli to beat a little pirate ass.

Did you notice my edit about the 17th? Genius; the States have already agreed to it... :(

ConHog
06-22-2012, 12:55 AM
Did you notice my edit about the 17th? Genius; the States have already agreed to it... :(

Huh?

fj1200
06-22-2012, 07:21 AM
Huh?

The representatives of the States, the Senators, have already given authority.

ConHog
06-22-2012, 08:29 AM
The representatives of the States, the Senators, have already given authority.

My huh was more of the do you think im disagreeing with you nature

fj1200
06-22-2012, 09:57 AM
My huh was more of the do you think im disagreeing with you nature

Gotcha, no I didn't think that.

Little-Acorn
07-04-2012, 04:06 PM
I'm not sure how many of the posts in this thread are merely trolling (saying silly or clearly false things for the purpose of sparking a reaction) and how many are honestly meant.

As you know, the Constitution was originally passed with no amendments at all. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. etc., were nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

And that was the beauty of it: Many of the people who wrote it, maintained that it was unnecessary to mention those things. The Constitution took a group of independent, sovereign states that held all powers, and took certain powers away from those states to turn them over to a central government. And that was ALL the Constitution did.

If a power wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that meant the Fed govt didn't have that power, and was FORBIDDEN to exercise it. That was the founding philosophy of the Constitution: It turned certain powers over to the Fed Govt... AND NO OTHERS.

And among the powers not listed in the new Constitution, were the power to restrict speech, the power to force or restrict religion, the power to restrict weapons, etc. So the Fed govt was forbidden to do any of those things, since it was given no powers to do them.

But some of the Framers were concerned that rights would be ignored or disparaged by various slick lawyers. They wanted to include a list of "the most important rights" that would be held inviolate. And some of the states said they would only ratify the new Constitution if they were promised that a bill of rights would be offered for ratification too. So Congress quickly passed a set of ten amendments, eight of which were quickly ratified; and then added two more which were also as quickly ratified.

Of the last two, one of them reaffirmed the basic philosophy that any power not specifically turned over to the Fed by the Constitution, remained a power of the states and the people. It became the 10th amendment. It said essentially, that if the Constitution didn't say it, the Federal Govt can't do it; but the States and the People still can if they want.

The other was in response to the fear of slick lawyers who might try to claim that since the right to peaceably assemble was protected under the Constitution but the right to ride horses was not, this meant that the people didn't have the right to ride horses. So another amendment was included, this time about the rights of the people. It said that just because a certain right wasn't explicitly mentioned, that did NOT mean that the people didn't still have that right. It became the 9th amendment.

Between them, the 9th and 10th are known as the "bookend amendments". The 9th deals with the rights of the people, and the 10th deals with the powers of government.

The 9th says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution;
the 10th says that the powers of government ARE limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

I believe that takes care of the question of whether the power of the Fed Govt was "really" intended to be 100% limited to only the powers listed in the Constitution.

Now, the next question: Have we obeyed the Constitution's founding philosophy?

The answer's easy, of course: not hardly.

Question after that: SHOULD we obey the Constitution's founding philosophy?

Depending on whether you're asking a big-govt advocate or a conservative, you'll get quite different answers. The question's been asked daily for roughly a hundred years, and no doubt will be for the forseeable future.

But if you want to ask, "What is constitutional?".... remember that you're not asking, "What sounds like the things *I* want the Federal government to be doing?" That's a completely different question.

revelarts
07-23-2012, 02:13 PM
I'm not sure how many of the posts in this thread are merely trolling (saying silly or clearly false things for the purpose of sparking a reaction) and how many are honestly meant.

As you know, the Constitution was originally passed with no amendments at all. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. etc., were nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

And that was the beauty of it: Many of the people who wrote it, maintained that it was unnecessary to mention those things. The Constitution took a group of independent, sovereign states that held all powers, and took certain powers away from those states to turn them over to a central government. And that was ALL the Constitution did.

If a power wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that meant the Fed govt didn't have that power, and was FORBIDDEN to exercise it. That was the founding philosophy of the Constitution: It turned certain powers over to the Fed Govt... AND NO OTHERS.

And among the powers not listed in the new Constitution, were the power to restrict speech, the power to force or restrict religion, the power to restrict weapons, etc. So the Fed govt was forbidden to do any of those things, since it was given no powers to do them.

But some of the Framers were concerned that rights would be ignored or disparaged by various slick lawyers. They wanted to include a list of "the most important rights" that would be held inviolate. And some of the states said they would only ratify the new Constitution if they were promised that a bill of rights would be offered for ratification too. So Congress quickly passed a set of ten amendments, eight of which were quickly ratified; and then added two more which were also as quickly ratified.

Of the last two, one of them reaffirmed the basic philosophy that any power not specifically turned over to the Fed by the Constitution, remained a power of the states and the people. It became the 10th amendment. It said essentially, that if the Constitution didn't say it, the Federal Govt can't do it; but the States and the People still can if they want.

The other was in response to the fear of slick lawyers who might try to claim that since the right to peaceably assemble was protected under the Constitution but the right to ride horses was not, this meant that the people didn't have the right to ride horses. So another amendment was included, this time about the rights of the people. It said that just because a certain right wasn't explicitly mentioned, that did NOT mean that the people didn't still have that right. It became the 9th amendment.

Between them, the 9th and 10th are known as the "bookend amendments". The 9th deals with the rights of the people, and the 10th deals with the powers of government.

The 9th says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution;
the 10th says that the powers of government ARE limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

I believe that takes care of the question of whether the power of the Fed Govt was "really" intended to be 100% limited to only the powers listed in the Constitution.

Now, the next question: Have we obeyed the Constitution's founding philosophy?

The answer's easy, of course: not hardly.

Question after that: SHOULD we obey the Constitution's founding philosophy?

Depending on whether you're asking a big-govt advocate or a conservative, you'll get quite different answers. The question's been asked daily for roughly a hundred years, and no doubt will be for the forseeable future.

But if you want to ask, "What is constitutional?".... remember that you're not asking, "What sounds like the things *I* want the Federal government to be doing?" That's a completely different question.

that's well said.

revelarts
07-23-2012, 02:17 PM
some quotes that go to the "final authority" of the SCOTUS and Constitution:


The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face.
Potter Stewart (1915-1985), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham, 1967


The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.
Justice William O. Douglas

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. Justice William O. Douglas

Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934


The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York; 1939