The Forgotten Founders

[PLC1]

First you bring up the 18th century to denigrate the Constitution and insinuate conservatives want to return to the 18th century. I destroy that argument and then you cite the Supreme Court as if it is some kind of revelation that it determines what is constitutional. Then you claim I do not determine what is constitutional like that is some kind of revelation.

WTF!

You are all over the place. Can you lighten up on the pot and stay on point just once?

I'm all over the place?

You want to go back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, while leaving out the Supreme Court. You do remember that the SC is a part of the Constitution, don't you?

 

[Gipper]

I'm all over the place?

You want to go back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, while leaving out the Supreme Court. You do remember that the SC is a part of the Constitution, don't you?

There you go again...I love that line and it is as applicable to YOU as it was to Jimma Carter!

Yeah lets dump the SC...

Did you know ALL conservatives want to get rid of the SC? Its true man!!! Its true!

Now pass that doobie!!!!

 

[PLC1]

There you go again...I love that line and it is as applicable to YOU as it was to Jimma Carter!

Yeah lets dump the SC...

Did you know ALL conservatives want to get rid of the SC? Its true man!!! Its true!

Now pass that doobie!!!!

Did you think you speak for "all conservatives?" No, you're the one who keeps saying that the Constitution is not being followed. I'm the one who pointed out that it is the SC who decides whether the Constitution is followed or not.

 

[Gipper]

Did you think you speak for "all conservatives?" No, you're the one who keeps saying that the Constitution is not being followed. I'm the one who pointed out that it is the SC who decides whether the Constitution is followed or not.

I do speak for all conservatives.

The SC decides? Really? No sh*t dude???

 

[PLC1]

I do speak for all conservatives.

You do? Wow! You're more famous than I thought. Are you really Rush or Glenn posting under a pseudonym?

The SC decides? Really? No sh*t dude???

Really, no (bleep!). That's what Ive been saying all along. You don't get to decide what is and is not constitutional, not even if you do speak for all conservatives.

 

[Gipper]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison

The Founders tried to warn us of the excesses of big uncontrollable government, but sadly most Americans are not listening or worse - some are completely brainwashed dupes.

 

[nobull]

First an excerpt from wikipedia...

General Welfare Clause

“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare clause appears to have achieved notoriety as the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories: the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax; and the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

[skipping to conclusion]

To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. Historically, however, the Anti-Federalists were wary of such an interpretation of this power during the ratification debates in the 1780s. Due to the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists, Madison was prompted to author his contributions to the Federalist Papers, attempting to quell the Anti-Federalists' fears of any such abuse by the proposed national government and to counter Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.​

So, in other words, there's been debate over this issue since the very inception of our nation. And for the last century the Hamiltonian view has predominated. It's not so simple for you to talk about the intent of our Founding Fathers, when just like today, their intentions spanned the political spectrum. They were debating about this as much about as we are today.

So after two hundred years we're still debating it. Am I "right"? I have no idea. I'm just making the best guess that I can based on my morals and sense of justice. I'll bet you are too. And as I've said before, it's the balance between our two camps that keeps this country on better footing than if any one of us had complete say.

Now let's go have a beer.

I don't care what liberals think. I regard them as unschooled. Afghanistan is now obama's war. Iraq was bush's war. Both are krap, both are destructive to the economy. I am a Conservative not to be confused with a bush rino. I want small gov. and gov that leaves people alone in this country as well as the globe. In other words, what China does is their business. I don't care about raising the flag for human rights. I am only worried about the human rights being taken away from American citizens... NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS!

I do not believe that I am my brother's keeper. I believe my brother should keep himself. I abhor welfare and am astonished that 60% of blacks in the US are on some form of gov assistance. In biology that would be the hallmark of a species heading toward extinction. Or you could just go back and consider it in a Kipling way as the white man's burden. He hit that nail on the head.

I would be fine with no social security, no gov healthcare, no medicare, no medicaid. I would not tax corporations since they are only responsible for 11% of the total tax collected and that dollar amount would be increased just on collections from the larger dividends at present rates.

There is nothing I like about the helpless liberals. 90% of gov is liberal waste. Title 9 is a total waste. Dept of Ed is a waste. EPA is a waste, Homeland security is not only a waste, it is a destroyer of rights our rights so some raghead doesn't feel bad about his insane brethren.

And when it comes to science... liberals turn it into religion like global warming. They can't do simple calculations over thermodynamics. So they are too lame to figure out why ethanol can never work as an oil substitute. Even that every idiot Al gore now says ethanol was a huge mistake. Welcome to the world of mathematics.

Then you talk about Banker greed. Who was buying the houses? Bankers? Siht no. Losers... hairdressers and taxicab drivers became speculators, fueled by the real estate brokers who said houses had never gone down in history. They all said we will soon be one big California. Well surprise liberal... Houses do go down.

Bankers were holding paper and debt is always covered by debt instruments. That's how it is handle. Someone has to secure the debt. And as debt gets riskier, the risk gets higher and so does the reward. Sometimes you win and sometimes you are on the wrong side of the investment.

The fact that the Clinton gov turned housing, a leveraged investment into the de facto leveraged investment shows you how gov intervention with capitalism demolishes the risks and always leads to collapse.

Yet liberals think AMTRAK and the post office are running great. So they are doing such a good job lets let gov run healthcare too.

Liberals are defective. The good news is that fewer and fewer persons are not claiming themselves as democrats.
So we may be in fact on the road to recovery.

regards
doug

 

[Gipper]

I don't care what liberals think. I regard them as unschooled. Afghanistan is now obama's war. Iraq was bush's war. Both are krap, both are destructive to the economy. I am a Conservative not to be confused with a bush rino. I want small gov. and gov that leaves people alone in this country as well as the globe. In other words, what China does is their business. I don't care about raising the flag for human rights. I am only worried about the human rights being taken away from American citizens... NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS!

I do not believe that I am my brother's keeper. I believe my brother should keep himself. I abhor welfare and am astonished that 60% of blacks in the US are on some form of gov assistance. In biology that would be the hallmark of a species heading toward extinction. Or you could just go back and consider it in a Kipling way as the white man's burden. He hit that nail on the head.

I would be fine with no social security, no gov healthcare, no medicare, no medicaid. I would not tax corporations since they are only responsible for 11% of the total tax collected and that dollar amount would be increased just on collections from the larger dividends at present rates.

There is nothing I like about the helpless liberals. 90% of gov is liberal waste. Title 9 is a total waste. Dept of Ed is a waste. EPA is a waste, Homeland security is not only a waste, it is a destroyer of rights our rights so some raghead doesn't feel bad about his insane brethren.

And when it comes to science... liberals turn it into religion like global warming. They can't do simple calculations over thermodynamics. So they are too lame to figure out why ethanol can never work as an oil substitute. Even that every idiot Al gore now says ethanol was a huge mistake. Welcome to the world of mathematics.

Then you talk about Banker greed. Who was buying the houses? Bankers? Siht no. Losers... hairdressers and taxicab drivers became speculators, fueled by the real estate brokers who said houses had never gone down in history. They all said we will soon be one big California. Well surprise liberal... Houses do go down.

Bankers were holding paper and debt is always covered by debt instruments. That's how it is handle. Someone has to secure the debt. And as debt gets riskier, the risk gets higher and so does the reward. Sometimes you win and sometimes you are on the wrong side of the investment.

The fact that the Clinton gov turned housing, a leveraged investment into the de facto leveraged investment shows you how gov intervention with capitalism demolishes the risks and always leads to collapse.

Yet liberals think AMTRAK and the post office are running great. So they are doing such a good job lets let gov run healthcare too.

Liberals are defective. The good news is that fewer and fewer persons are not claiming themselves as democrats.
So we may be in fact on the road to recovery.

regards
doug

Well said Doug and I agree with it all.

Your comment about the government screwing with capitalism in the housing market is a good one. Of course, government blames capitalism for the failures in the economy when anyone with a brain can see it is government intrusions in the private sector that is the problem.

This is so right by the Great One.

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. - Ronald Reagan

 

[clarkatticus]

Do I detect a sense of anger and polarization? The Constitution as imagined by the founders cannot be discerned as the founders contradicted themselves and each other. As a result of this obvious revelation, the document becomes a "living document", subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court and the current members therein. English common law uses precedent as the standard of decision and so do we. You can *****, whine, wave your gun and call people bad names in forums but you cannot change the above reality. Truth be known, you guys lost the argument the day New York ratified the Constitution because the paradym is as unchangeable now as it was then.

 

[Gipper]

Do I detect a sense of anger and polarization? The Constitution as imagined by the founders cannot be discerned as the founders contradicted themselves and each other. As a result of this obvious revelation, the document becomes a "living document", subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court and the current members therein. English common law uses precedent as the standard of decision and so do we. You can *****, whine, wave your gun and call people bad names in forums but you cannot change the above reality. Truth be known, you guys lost the argument the day New York ratified the Constitution because the paradym is as unchangeable now as it was then.

Well there you have it.

The Constitution means whatever the elites think it means. So, we are ruled by the whims of those in power who are unconstrained by any silly laws and have unlimited power.

History shows this kind of government does not work out too well.

 

[clarkatticus]

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post. We use a tried and true method called precedent. It is what our forefathers used to make the Constitution. Your rhetoric toward the Supreme Court and lower courts would be justified if there was one shred of fact behind it. As it is, it's just more radical right wing jargon for "they passed laws I don't like and I hate them for it". One of the bad things about living in a Constitutional republic is that sometimes other people have different views and they might just outnumber you. Feel free to wave your hands and spread fear amongst your little following, take comfort in the fact people like you have been doing the same thing since the Constitution was ratified. The rest of us compromise and move on.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well there you have it.

The Constitution means whatever the elites think it means. So, we are ruled by the whims of those in power who are unconstrained by any silly laws and have unlimited power.

History shows this kind of government does not work out too well.

I see. so we should have a constitution that means what ever you think it means? that makes far more sense...Because your special and have a special deep insight that no one else has right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post. We use a tried and true method called precedent. It is what our forefathers used to make the Constitution. Your rhetoric toward the Supreme Court and lower courts would be justified if there was one shred of fact behind it. As it is, it's just more radical right wing jargon for "they passed laws I don't like and I hate them for it". One of the bad things about living in a Constitutional republic is that sometimes other people have different views and they might just outnumber you. Feel free to wave your hands and spread fear amongst your little following, take comfort in the fact people like you have been doing the same thing since the Constitution was ratified. The rest of us compromise and move on.

thats basicly what many on the rights issue is...they scream about acitvist judges...when thats what they want for them self...just they want them to act differently and rule how they want them to...Just like those damn activist judges who said seperate but equal was not constitutional...becuase its not...and many on the right did not agree with that...it was "Activist"

of course when a judge rules that a company can give as much money to elections as they want and buy a election if they wish...making that legal after some 100 years and even though I think it destroys our Democracy...that was not activist to change the rule of law in our land.
I strongly disagree with the ruling...but I don't think its a issue of Activist judges...its a issue to many on the court who think that money is free speech. If I was like many on the right I would just scream that they just made this up and are going around the law and all that...but the fact is, there is a way to come to that viewpoint useing the idea of the first amendment...I just happen to not agree with that way of viewing what it says...Just like there is a logical argument to say that the goverment can regulate guns and there is one to own a gun...it does not say flat out, you have the right to own any gun any size with any ammo and as many rounds as you feel the need to have...it talks about a well regulated Militia that we don't have today or need.. the 4th word of the 2nd is Regulated...one can make that case based on the 2nd that they can have a nuclear bomb if they wish...its stupid but yet some take it that far....and both sides can use the same thing to make there point...it comes down to how one reads it and understands it.

activist is just code for, I don't like and or understand the ruling of a judge.

 

[PLC1]

One of the bad things about living in a Constitutional republic is that sometimes other people have different views and they might just outnumber you.

No, one of the bad things about living in a democracyis that sometimes other people have different views and they might just outnumber you. One thing the Constitution does is to protect the rights of the minority.

The will of the people is not the supreme law of the land in the US, as so many people seem to think. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see. so we should have a constitution that means what ever you think it means? that makes far more sense...Because your special and have a special deep insight that no one else has right?

I thought that was your view... Being a "living" document and all, subject to altercation through interpretation rather than amendment ratification.