U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-25-2015, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,024 posts, read 13,247,591 times
Reputation: 13828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I've studied the Constitution at length. This includes several college courses in constitutional law.
Then you should know that the committee meeting notes hold more sway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32 View Post
The Commerce Clause was and still is essential to effective national government.
The US was established as a federal republic, not a unitary State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32 View Post
And of course, the actual problem that a typical brain-washed reactionary of today will have with respect to the Commerce Clause is that 250 years worth of technology have made almost everything classifiable as part of interstate commerce.
No, it hasn't. The intent and purpose of the Commerce Clause is clear from the committee meeting notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32 View Post
The Commerce Clause is conceptual in its nature, being based upon the necessary principle of federal government supremacy on matters of interstate commerce.
That would be incorrect, and a misinterpretation of the Clause.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mauialoha View Post
Oh really? And what did those inalienable rights entail? For women? for blacks?
I'm 64 years old...
Cultural relativity is of no importance here. You would have been a slave-owner yourself, given the chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
One example would "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States". What is commerce and what is not was not defined in the document.
It was defined in the committee meeting notes, and in the dictionary.


Commerce noun [from the Latin commercium] to exchange one thing for another; trade; traffic.

See A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.

10th Edition

London, 1785.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2015, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,383 posts, read 6,794,913 times
Reputation: 14439
"The Constitution, A noble piece of paper
With free society - Struggled but it died in vain
And now Democracy is ragtime on the corner,
Hoping for some rain"

I'm going to leave it up to somebody else to identify who penned those words, save to mention that I first heard them in February of 1975, not long after ten years of polarization had culminated in Watergate -- an event that allowed the mainstream media of the time to report and elaborate on many points of Constitutional law -- and that the author was no neophyte, even back then.

My point being, that the definition and refinement of individual rights and responsibilities remains in flux, and the process has been further complicated by greater societal diversity, the further development of instant/mass communication and global commerce. We have to guard against the emergence of too-strong figures from any part of the political landscape, while simultaneously maintaining a vigilance against "marginal politics" -- campaigning more for the attention from a drunk in front of a TV set than the struggling individual who still knows what's at stake.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-25-2015 at 05:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 05:27 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 880,471 times
Reputation: 1084
Moderator cut: Orphaned - Quoted post has been deleted

Let me for instance provide some useful words from South Carolina v U.S. (1905) --

But it is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110 U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed."

-- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court


The internally cited case of Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884, and the very same sentiment carries back through the Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland (1819) and Marbury v Madison (1803), and on into the Federalist Papers of the late 1780's, #78 quite particularly.

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 05:52 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 880,471 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The US was established as a federal republic, not a unitary State.
There are numerous clauses throughout the Constitution that belie such a crude analysis of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That would be incorrect, and a misinterpretation of the Clause.
Moderator cut: Personal Attack

The want of authy. in Congs. to regulate Commerce had produced in Foreign nations particularly G. B. a monopolizing policy injurious to the trade of the U. S. and destructive to their navigation; the imbecility and anticipated dissolution of the Confederacy extinguishg. all apprehensions of a Countervailing policy on the part of the U. States. The same want of a general power over Commerce led to an exercise of this power separately, by the States, wch not only proved abortive, but engendered rival, conflicting and angry regulations. Besides the vain attempts to supply their respective treasuries by imposts, which turned their commerce into the neighbouring ports, and to co-erce a relaxation of the British monopoly of the W. Indn. navigation, which was attemted by Virga. the States having ports for foreign commerce, taxed & irritated the adjoining States, trading thro’ them, as N. Y. Pena. Virga. & S–Carolina. Some of the States, as Connecticut, taxed imports as from Massts higher than imports even from G. B. of wch Massts. complained to Virga. and doubtless to other States. In sundry instances of as N. Y. N. J. Pa. & Maryd. the navigation laws treated the Citizens of other States as aliens.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 2, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce), Document 7
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ommerces7.html
The University of Chicago Press

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,755 posts, read 982,908 times
Reputation: 2977
Moderator cut: Orphaned - Quoted Post has been deleted

Instead, perhaps you can respond to any of my posts in which I have cited multiple remarks by several of the Founding Fathers and also political scientists of later years and explain to us why these cites are wrong or irrelevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The real giveaway for me is when someone professes great understanding of the Constitution, either fails to mention any Supreme Court cases interpreting this document or mentions the court barely in passing. (Another clue is when they fail to talk at all about the Fourteenth Amendment and how it extends application of the Bill of Rights to the states)
Well, I find it disappointing in the extreme when a great subject for discussion is raised and yet some people obviously fail to read the posts made by others.

Of course I have not cited and SCOTUS cases as I am not addressing what SCOTUS thinks. I explicitly have addressed instead what it is the Founding Fathers believes and what their intent was in crafting the Constitution.

I know well what SCOTUS thinks, but, that isn't the topic I am addressing.

If you read my posts more carefully, this much would be evident.

And I did refer to the 14th Amendment, though not by name, when I spoke of the intent of the Founding Fathers rather than what was subsequently added. If that went over your head, that is not my problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
If you talk about the Constitution and federalism without discussing cases like Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, or McCulloch v. Maryland its clear that your understanding of the document is--to put it charitably--rather limited.
I also referred to these cases, again though, not by name (but I did mention that SCOTUS established early on for itself the power of judicial review). Again, if you didn't catch that, then perhaps it is you who have a limited understanding?

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 06:14 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 880,471 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Instead, perhaps you can respond to any of my posts in which I have cited multiple remarks by several of the Founding Fathers and also political scientists of later years and explain to us why these cites are wrong or irrelevant?
I'll just note that those selections were pre-cherrypicked and taken out of context for you by right-wing disinformation services. Moderator cut: Insulting

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,755 posts, read 982,908 times
Reputation: 2977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32 View Post
I'll just note that those selections were pre-cherrypicked and taken out of context for you by right-wing disinformation services. Moderator cut: Insulting
I'm discussing the intent of the Founding Fathers and specifically the Framers of the Constitution.

How exactly is citation to the words and comments of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution regarding their intent and the meaning of their words as written in the Constitution not relevant to a discussion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution?

And how are such citations in any way disinformation? Can you explain to us how my cites are irrelevant or otherwise incorrect?

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 09:54 PM
 
Location: La Costa, California
860 posts, read 440,608 times
Reputation: 1863
Quote:
I'm discussing the intent of the Founding Fathers and specifically the Framers of the Constitution.
Yes, and as has been pointed out to you, the intent of the FF was to deny basic rights to women. Their intent was to allow slavery - to allow men to be beaten, the women to be raped etc.

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with preserving their intentions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,383 posts, read 6,794,913 times
Reputation: 14439
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauialoha View Post
Yes, and as has been pointed out to you, the intent of the FF was to deny basic rights to women. Their intent was to allow slavery - to allow men to be beaten, the women to be raped etc.

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with preserving their intentions.
Because those were not their specific intentions; or anything close to them; they were, within some segments of the society of those times, a regrettable by-product of the culture. And they were not accepted by all, or even by a majority. Organized efforts to end the slave trade began well before the American Revolution, and found support among the more-enlightened on both sides of the Atlantic; just not enough to force the issue upon a precarious democracy still getting under way.

The "decision to allow slavery" was arrived at out of the necessity of convincing both free and slave-holding states to ratify the Constitution after the failure of the weaker Articles of Confederation. Once all had joined, the Union had the strength to preserve itself, but only at the cost of civil war.

Moderator cut: Off Topic

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,755 posts, read 982,908 times
Reputation: 2977
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauialoha View Post
Yes, and as has been pointed out to you, the intent of the FF was to deny basic rights to women. Their intent was to allow slavery - to allow men to be beaten, the women to be raped etc.
No. That was not their intent. Not of those who framed and drafted the Constitution. They were well aware that America was not a reflection of the words contained in the Constitution. They knew, however, that in order to unify the several States at the time, they would have to allow certain contradictions to exist temporarily.

That Americans took a while to live up to (and yes, are continuing to reach for) the ideals expressed in the Constitution, does not negate the greatness and brilliance of either the Constitution or the men who drafted it, nor does it serve as a proper indictment of the Founding Fathers or the Framers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mauialoha View Post
I don't understand why you are so obsessed with preserving their intentions.
Er... because those intentions are noble, wise, and desirable. I like personal liberty for me and for all. How is that difficult to grasp?

Back to the issue of intent and whether the Constitution was meant to enable or to limit the new federal government, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, wrote:

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power, but America has charters of power granted by liberty.


Moderator cut: Off Topic

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-26-2015 at 09:11 AM.. Reason: Off Topic/Tag Fix
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top