Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let’s have some fun with the Constitution. Here’s the Tenth Amendment:
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.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let’s have some fun with the Constitution. Here’s the Tenth Amendment:
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.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
I think the real question is, “Is the US Constitution a legal document?”
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let’s have some fun with the Constitution. Here’s the Tenth Amendment:
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.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
I think the real question is, “Is the US Constitution a legal document?”
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
There is indeed much truth to your words. Nevertheless, we all cloak ourselves in the Constitution, and pay it homage when we advance our causes. No one running for office is going to say, “You know what, the Constitution is essentially dead, and we might as well admit that we don’t follow it anymore. My policies will not be in compliance with it.”
If we progressives are to take ourselves seriously when we complain that Bush is violating the Constitution, and that Congress is not living up to its responsibilities, I think that we owe it to ourselves to know what’s in that document. Personally, I believe that it’s a flawed, but fantastic document, and I think that unless we are willing to part ways with it openly, we ought to be able to say what its words mean to us.
I saw this yesterday and went to their site. Go there, sign the petition, donate and send the video to everybody you know. Finally there is a groundswell to stop the Bushco Propaganda Machine from destroying this country and we have a chance to do something. Just like Howard Zinn said, “The essential ingredients of these struggles for justice are human beings who, if only for a moment, if only while beset with fears, step our of line and do something, however small.” You Can’t Be Neutral On a Moving Train, Howard Zinn, 2002. Go there and make a difference, stopbigmedia.com
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists’ agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It’s over.
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists’ agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It’s over.
I’m not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I’m not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I’ll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists’ agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It’s over.
I’m not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I’m not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I’ll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
Just a momentary lapse of reason. I’ll get over it. Hard not have mood swings these days.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
because Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the ONLY candidates who represent REAL change. The others are bought by the political elite classes and financial elite classes. None of the others will end the war, none of the others will roll-back the fascist measures that Bush Administration and the enabling accomplices Democrats have enacted that circumvent and violate the Constitution.
And of those two, only Paul has managed the sort of traction and fund-raising to have a chance.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Not sure. I think it may have something to do with the name of the thread. Or it could have something to do with Ron Paul supporters reading it and commenting. We should organize a study group…
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I’ll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred — Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency — are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it’s doing)?
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I’ll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred — Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency — are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it’s doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution also states:
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I’ll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred — Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency — are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it’s doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution also states:
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Yes, that would be the procedure. How a bill becomes a law.
I’m not sure I see your point here, xoites. Mere passage by the proper procedure doesn’t exactly make a law Constitutional, does it? I mean, if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said, crooksandliars.com shall no longer have free speech, and shall be shut down by force beginning Jan. 1, 2008 by the federal government, I’m pretty sure you’d immediately cry out for all of our First Amendment rights.
So, if the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people, how are all the Paul bearers loony toons?
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution.
So, the federal government has plenary power to do whatever it wants as long as it follows procedure? What’s the point of explicitly listing out its powers in a Constitution, then? Aren’t we supposed to have limited government? Can the Government violate our rights when it feels like it as long as it follows procedure?
If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
I fail to see how the words mean that. You’re essentially interpreting them to mean that the federal government has the power to do just about anything, and that the states may pick up where the fed leaves off.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is “for, by and of the people.” If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
But I’m asking on what basis you would defend it. I would think that you would be particularly eager to talk about how the Constitution is supposed to work, given your moniker and all. :)
I mean, seriously. The Paul bearers talk about being the true defenders of the written Constitution. How can we write them off as loons if we don’t have a response to their Constitutional arguments.
It’s really not enough to say that laws were enacted according to procedure, is it? I mean, we wouldn’t accept that argument from a theocrat about something we considered an establishment of religion would we? And if the Roberts Court upholds what we consider an establishment, we’d still be railing about how the Constitution has been violated, wouldn’t we?
So, I think it behooves us to have a cogent response to them. If we cloak ourselves in the legitimacy of the Constitution, and claim that our actions accord with it and that we hold it sacred, we ought to know what it says, and what it means.
It also follows the spirit of ending a “ruling class” by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers’ intentions.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is “for, by and of the people.” If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
I would never have expected to watch you, xoites, come out in favor of unfettered democracy. This is the same argument theocrats and authoritarians regularly use for their own policies. I’m stunned.
I must vehemently disagree with your assessment of the Constitution as one of unfettered democracy. I see the Constitution to have been written in the spirit of liberty.
Article I, Section 8 lists out the powers that were explicitly delegated to Congress. It explicitly says that Congress has the powers to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific list of powers. In the Tenth Amendment, it then adds that any powers that were not explicitly delegated to the federal government, are reserved for the states or the people.
To me, that’s limited government. I would think that before the federal government can act, it has to find the power listed in the Constitution. Otherwise it is going beyond the scope of its powers.
I’m not saying that the powers aren’t there to, say, create Social Security, for instance. But we need a much better argument than what you’ve presented.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Well, merely reiterating your words verbatim without actually defending them will hardly convince me.
It also follows the spirit of ending a “ruling class” by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers’ intentions.
Goodness, you’ve now latched onto the doctrine of Original Intent? Wow. :)
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward. This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it. I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States’ Laws governing slavery.
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward.
Forgive me if I’m beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can’t undue my law degree. :)
But we rant here all the time about how Bush is violating the Constitution, and that how Ron Paul doesn’t understand it. I do agree that the Constitution is pretty straightforward. But frankly, it doesn’t seem like people have actually read it.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you’d want to read it in full, and understand its words. :) I’m not trying to be insulting. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m sounding insulting.
This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it.
That’s an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don’t agree with it, and I find it dangerous. Like you said, the Constitution is straightforward. It lists out, explicitly, the powers that were delegated to the federal government. Then it says that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out those powers. Then it says that if a power isn’t listed there, it’s the province of the states or the people.
I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States’ Laws governing slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.
No Trackbacks To “Open Thread“
Saw this earlier today. It hits the nail on the head.
Can’t wait until they start certifying blogers so this crap can spread to the internet.
That is a fantastic video.
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let’s have some fun with the Constitution. Here’s the Tenth Amendment:
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.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
Reminds me a lot of the old Dead Kennedys albums inserts. We need so much more of this stuff.
killer video
Karen @ 3:
I think the real question is, “Is the US Constitution a legal document?”
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
xoites defends Constitution @ 6:
There is indeed much truth to your words. Nevertheless, we all cloak ourselves in the Constitution, and pay it homage when we advance our causes. No one running for office is going to say, “You know what, the Constitution is essentially dead, and we might as well admit that we don’t follow it anymore. My policies will not be in compliance with it.”
If we progressives are to take ourselves seriously when we complain that Bush is violating the Constitution, and that Congress is not living up to its responsibilities, I think that we owe it to ourselves to know what’s in that document. Personally, I believe that it’s a flawed, but fantastic document, and I think that unless we are willing to part ways with it openly, we ought to be able to say what its words mean to us.
kathy griffin talks about ann coulter on the today show
I saw this yesterday and went to their site. Go there, sign the petition, donate and send the video to everybody you know. Finally there is a groundswell to stop the Bushco Propaganda Machine from destroying this country and we have a chance to do something. Just like Howard Zinn said, “The essential ingredients of these struggles for justice are human beings who, if only for a moment, if only while beset with fears, step our of line and do something, however small.” You Can’t Be Neutral On a Moving Train, Howard Zinn, 2002. Go there and make a difference, stopbigmedia.com
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists’ agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It’s over.
*For the administration to consider making into an article*
Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (Ret.) Announces His Candidacy for Senate!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8qfFOJZDbg
Ron Paul will likely be breaking 1 day fundraising efforts tomorrow with the Tea Party drive
http://www.teaparty07.com/
Just watched the video and noticed the “White men”=villain meme has struke again.
CD @ 13:
Really? I was noticing the lepracauns myself.
xoites defends Constitution @ 10:
I’m not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I’m not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I’ll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
Oh, i see, you think Ann Coulture is a man. LOL!
Karen @ 15:
Just a momentary lapse of reason. I’ll get over it. Hard not have mood swings these days.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media” — controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
Pretty scary.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Ali @ 18:
Sorry, my editor won’t let me comment on that.
suckerforpuns @ 19:
because Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the ONLY candidates who represent REAL change. The others are bought by the political elite classes and financial elite classes. None of the others will end the war, none of the others will roll-back the fascist measures that Bush Administration and the enabling accomplices Democrats have enacted that circumvent and violate the Constitution.
And of those two, only Paul has managed the sort of traction and fund-raising to have a chance.
suckerforpuns @ 19:
Not sure. I think it may have something to do with the name of the thread. Or it could have something to do with Ron Paul supporters reading it and commenting. We should organize a study group…
That vid was nicely done!
suckerforpuns @ 19:
Hmm, perhaps I’ll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred — Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency — are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it’s doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
Nice vid, much props! Good background music, what is that song? Excellent presentation.
Karen @ 24:
The Constitution also states:
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
xoites defends Constitution @ 26:
Yes, that would be the procedure. How a bill becomes a law.
I’m not sure I see your point here, xoites. Mere passage by the proper procedure doesn’t exactly make a law Constitutional, does it? I mean, if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said, crooksandliars.com shall no longer have free speech, and shall be shut down by force beginning Jan. 1, 2008 by the federal government, I’m pretty sure you’d immediately cry out for all of our First Amendment rights.
So, if the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people, how are all the Paul bearers loony toons?
xoites defends Constitution @ 14:
You and those crazy eyes. :P
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
xoites defends Constitution @ 27:
So, the federal government has plenary power to do whatever it wants as long as it follows procedure? What’s the point of explicitly listing out its powers in a Constitution, then? Aren’t we supposed to have limited government? Can the Government violate our rights when it feels like it as long as it follows procedure?
I fail to see how the words mean that. You’re essentially interpreting them to mean that the federal government has the power to do just about anything, and that the states may pick up where the fed leaves off.
I don’t see how you can get that from the text.
And i will gladly restate my point:
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is “for, by and of the people.” If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
xoites defends Constitution @ 30:
But I’m asking on what basis you would defend it. I would think that you would be particularly eager to talk about how the Constitution is supposed to work, given your moniker and all. :)
I mean, seriously. The Paul bearers talk about being the true defenders of the written Constitution. How can we write them off as loons if we don’t have a response to their Constitutional arguments.
It’s really not enough to say that laws were enacted according to procedure, is it? I mean, we wouldn’t accept that argument from a theocrat about something we considered an establishment of religion would we? And if the Roberts Court upholds what we consider an establishment, we’d still be railing about how the Constitution has been violated, wouldn’t we?
So, I think it behooves us to have a cogent response to them. If we cloak ourselves in the legitimacy of the Constitution, and claim that our actions accord with it and that we hold it sacred, we ought to know what it says, and what it means.
It also follows the spirit of ending a “ruling class” by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers’ intentions.
R.I.P. Julia Carson………..job well done.
xoites defends Constitution @ 33:
I would never have expected to watch you, xoites, come out in favor of unfettered democracy. This is the same argument theocrats and authoritarians regularly use for their own policies. I’m stunned.
I must vehemently disagree with your assessment of the Constitution as one of unfettered democracy. I see the Constitution to have been written in the spirit of liberty.
Article I, Section 8 lists out the powers that were explicitly delegated to Congress. It explicitly says that Congress has the powers to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific list of powers. In the Tenth Amendment, it then adds that any powers that were not explicitly delegated to the federal government, are reserved for the states or the people.
To me, that’s limited government. I would think that before the federal government can act, it has to find the power listed in the Constitution. Otherwise it is going beyond the scope of its powers.
I’m not saying that the powers aren’t there to, say, create Social Security, for instance. But we need a much better argument than what you’ve presented.
xoites defends Constitution @ 32:
Well, merely reiterating your words verbatim without actually defending them will hardly convince me.
xoites defends Constitution @ 35:
Goodness, you’ve now latched onto the doctrine of Original Intent? Wow. :)
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward. This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it. I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States’ Laws governing slavery.
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
Forgive me if I’m beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can’t undue my law degree. :)
But we rant here all the time about how Bush is violating the Constitution, and that how Ron Paul doesn’t understand it. I do agree that the Constitution is pretty straightforward. But frankly, it doesn’t seem like people have actually read it.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you’d want to read it in full, and understand its words. :) I’m not trying to be insulting. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m sounding insulting.
That’s an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don’t agree with it, and I find it dangerous. Like you said, the Constitution is straightforward. It lists out, explicitly, the powers that were delegated to the federal government. Then it says that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out those powers. Then it says that if a power isn’t listed there, it’s the province of the states or the people.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.