The Tenth Amendment

[revelarts]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But trying to say that the Constitution honestly allows for the EPA and many other items is just untrue.

Opinion is opinion.

[revelarts]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.