Protect against Nazi America

[mandym]

It is the height of folly to claim to know how the Framers would have applied the Constitution to every situation centuries later.

No its not that is just an excuse.

That's why we have the text of the Constitution as interpreted by case law to guide us.

Oh, you mean case law like the one that says children can be murdered. Or case law that says black people are not complete humans. That kind of case law. You can call it textual or anything you want. But a skunk with lipstick is still a skunk.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Obviously, many are ignorant regarding the fact that the Constitution is not our sole law of the land. Case law and precedential rulings are also law.

 

[mandym]

Obviously, many are ignorant regarding the fact that the Constitution is not our sole law of the land. Case law and precedential rulings are also law.

Everything is measured by the Constitution. That is the ground work for all laws.

 

[freeatlast]

Everything is measured by the Constitution. That is the ground work for all laws.

Well that is what is suppose to happen, but.....

 

[FR7 Baptist]

No, it doesn't have anything to do with what it says. If it did, you would recognize that it clearly limits the powers of Government to the items listed. The Constitution "actually says" what the "general welfare" applies to. Article 1 Section 8, REITERATES this limitation at the end of the list, saying...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

In other words, those not listed are excluded by the 10th amendment.

One of these powers is to tax and spend for the general welfare. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment is a mere truism. Everything in it was already implicit in the Constitution.

 

[mandym]

One of these powers is to tax and spend for the general welfare. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment is a mere truism. Everything in it was already implicit in the Constitution.

Even if you do not copy them word for word you really need to source statements like this since it is not your original thought but a copy of any one of several possible sources. In a college setting this would most likely be viewed as plagiarism.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Even if you do not copy them word for word you really need to source statements like this since it is not your original thought but a copy of any one of several possible sources. In a college setting this would most likely be viewed as plagiarism.

It was the Supreme Court who first referred to it as a truism. Yes, that post was an original thought.

 

[Havensdad]

One of these powers is to tax and spend for the general welfare. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment is a mere truism. Everything in it was already implicit in the Constitution.

Have you actually bothered reading it?! It refers to "general welfare" and then goes on to LIST what they MEANT by "general welfare"....army, Navy, Post Office, etc.

To say that "general welfare" can be defined as anything that the legislature wants it to mean, completely eliminates the very government restraining power that the Constitution is supposed to provide. "General welfare" is not a catch all term...it is specifically delineated.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Have you actually bothered reading it?! It refers to "general welfare" and then goes on to LIST what they MEANT by "general welfare"....army, Navy, Post Office, etc.

To say that "general welfare" can be defined as anything that the legislature wants it to mean, completely eliminates the very government restraining power that the Constitution is supposed to provide. "General welfare" is not a catch all term...it is specifically delineated.

Yes, I've read it and studied it extensively. It does not state that the rest of the article is intended to define "general welfare". It is clearly an independent grant of power to the Congress. The Congress can't do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare, but it has plenary power to TAX and SPEND for that purpose. What constitutes the general welfare is up to the Congress, as the legislative body of the United States.

 

[Havensdad]

Yes, I've read it and studied it extensively. It does not state that the rest of the article is intended to define "general welfare". It is clearly an independent grant of power to the Congress. The Congress can't do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare, but it has plenary power to TAX and SPEND for that purpose. What constitutes the general welfare is up to the Congress, as the legislative body of the United States.

It has power to tax and spend for the purposes specifically delineated in the Constitution. It does NOT have the power to tax and spend for things which are not listed in the Constitution. "General Welfare" is not a catch all phrase that represents anything that the government wants it to mean: that makes the Constitution completely meaningless as a Government limiting document. "General Welfare" only includes those things those things which are expressly permitted...not the Department of Education, and other Unconstitutional state power grabs.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

It has power to tax and spend for the purposes specifically delineated in the Constitution. It does NOT have the power to tax and spend for things which are not listed in the Constitution. "General Welfare" is not a catch all phrase that represents anything that the government wants it to mean: that makes the Constitution completely meaningless as a Government limiting document. "General Welfare" only includes those things those things which are expressly permitted...not the Department of Education, and other Unconstitutional state power grabs.

Then show me that from the text of the Constitution and any case law that backs up your radical position.

 

[Havensdad]

Then show me that from the text of the Constitution and any case law that backs up your radical position.

Radical? There are an enormous body of Constitutional Scholars and Constitutional lawyers that agree with me. Do a search on "Department of Education unconstitutional" and you will get thousands of hits from various sites, legal documents, etc., that support what I am saying.

I have already presented case law which backed up the position. Since FDR threatened the Supreme court with adding additional members to get the votes he needed for his "New Deal", however, their haven't been any. Why? Because there was a paradigm shift in the judicial branch, from enforcing the Constitution, and interpreting laws, to reinterpreting the Constitution, and CREATING laws. Case in point; Roe vs. Wade.

Tell me, since you believe that the Supreme Court is always right, does that mean you agree with Roe v Wade?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I never said the Supreme Court is always right.

In the one case you did mention as supporting your view of the Taxing and Spending Clause, United States v. Butler, the Court took the broad view of that clause in spite of striking down the specific law in question. Butler actually supports my view.

 

[Havensdad]

I never said the Supreme Court is always right.

In the one case you did mention as supporting your view of the Taxing and Spending Clause, United States v. Butler, the Court took the broad view of that clause in spite of striking down the specific law in question. Butler actually supports my view.

Actually, the case is known for being self contradictory. Roberts stated that...

"The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end."

Up until this time, the spending clause was regarded as restricted by the specifically delegated constitutional powers of Congress. So this is one of those times where the Supreme Court was "wrong."

Specifically limiting the power of Congress means nothing if they can simply jump through a loophole to get by these limits. It is blatantly obvious that this supreme court (and liberal justices and legislators after them), ignored the express intent of the framers in order to advance their liberal agenda.

 

[billwald]

Every supreme court decision is right until it is overturned.

 

[Havensdad]

Every supreme court decision is right until it is overturned.

No its not. It is enforced...that does not mean its "right." If they declared murder to be legal, it would still be wrong, just no one would get in trouble for it.