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.
I believe that your comment is based upon a few factual errors. .
Quote:
The way the system was set up, was that the government had wide, sweeping powers during war, to tax for the common defense, and to ensure that everyones freedom was protected.
Forgive me for being grammatically pedantic, but grammatical construction is at the heart of any contextual reading of the Constitution, as the parsing of every phrase is one of the key basis by which the Court weighs when deciding on Constitutional issues.
Stating that the Constitution grants the Federal government wide powers is true, It does have sweeping powers during war. But it has the power to tax for more than just war.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
As for you conclusion that states have no power, I find that rather bizarre in light of the fact that states have the greatest and most fundamental power over life and liberty, the right to enact laws which can lead to one's incarceration and or execution, and while I certainly could enumerate other powers in which the state holds other but lesser exclusive powers, I think the above citation is sufficient to make my point.
One last point, prior to the establishment of Aid to Dependent Children, a much maligned program that frankly no longer exist, each state was solely responsible for providing support for the indigent, some states performed this task admirably, other far less so. In assuming greater responsibility all the Federal government did was to set a minimum level by which all indigent citizens could enjoy, states were still free to provide just the minimum or to grant greater privileges as the state saw fit.
Your post is so amorphous as to have little real meaning. For example the recent debate concerned with the remarks made by Rand Paul regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 involves increasing the rights of individuals which Paul believes limits the rights of another. Your comment is silent regarding which increase of individual rights you would be in favor of, the rights of those to be free from racial discrimination of the individual right of those who would discriminate.
The Constitution is a political document, that grew out of the political compromises need to reach a political consensus. In doing so the Framers found it necessary to balance the rights of one against the rights of another, a balance that the Congress and the Court have had to weigh since the Constitutions ratification. Simply stating that you are for the increase of individual rights with out a contextual backdrop is simply not sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Freedom of association is a difficult one. I was speaking in generalities, mostly about amendments such as prohibition, anti-gay marriage etc. The problem we have is we now have a system where force becomes the only solution. When the government puts severe restrictions on business, or creates monopoly status for other businesses, it serves to stop competition.
As far as the civil rights issue I would say that not allowing the government to discriminate is well within the definition I provided earlier. As far as how to deal with private business that is sticky, as I said before the barriers to entry are made more difficult by our crony, corporatist system so I can see banning discrimination in that case. Unfortunately it does not stop the activity of closet racism. I would prefer to know who is racist so I don’t have to worry about giving them my money.
Unfortunately the law has made that knowledge difficult to come by.
In a truly free system private racism would be allowed and IMHO it would also be derided by the majority and eventually eliminated or marginalized.
I believe that your comment is based upon a few factual errors. .
Forgive me for being grammatically pedantic, but grammatical construction is at the heart of any contextual reading of the Constitution, as the parsing of every phrase is one of the key basis by which the Court weighs when deciding on Constitutional issues.
Stating that the Constitution grants the Federal government wide powers is true, It does have sweeping powers during war. But it has the power to tax for more than just war.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
As for you conclusion that states have no power, I find that rather bizarre in light of the fact that states have the greatest and most fundamental power over life and liberty, the right to enact laws which can lead to one's incarceration and or execution, and while I certainly could enumerate other powers in which the state holds other but lesser exclusive powers, I think the above citation is sufficient to make my point.
One last point, prior to the establishment of Aid to Dependent Children, a much maligned program that frankly no longer exist, each state was solely responsible for providing support for the indigent, some states performed this task admirably, other far less so. In assuming greater responsibility all the Federal government did was to set a minimum level by which all indigent citizens could enjoy, states were still free to provide just the minimum or to grant greater privileges as the state saw fit.
Yes, but what is the "General Welfare"? I can see how everyone benefits from the interstate system. Cheaper products, easier travel, etc. Thats something that they should tax, and build.
However, does it benefit everyone to dole out welfare checks? Not really, it just keeps otherwise poor people from committing crimes to get the things they need. But, it also allows people to sit on their butts, and do nothing.
And, the vast majority of the people out there don't ever use welfare, and it does them no good.
Passing laws where the planetarium in Chicago got an upgrade, did me no good. Passing laws where there was a bridge built to an island no one goes to, did me no good.
On the other hand, passing regulations against the oil companies in the gulf, to make sure there are safety standards in place to prevent oil spills does benefit everyone.
My point is, the federal government was set up to pass laws that was good for everyone, every state, every place. We've gotten to the point where the Federal government is passing laws that benefits one group of individuals, and ignoring everyone else.
As for you conclusion that states have no power, I find that rather bizarre in light of the fact that states have the greatest and most fundamental power over life and liberty, the right to enact laws which can lead to one's incarceration and or execution, and while I certainly could enumerate other powers in which the state holds other but lesser exclusive powers, I think the above citation is sufficient to make my point.
.
The so-called "states rights" provision is one of the most poorly understood, because, as short as it is, many readers skip an important part of the Tenth Amendment.
Amendment 10
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.
But the United States DOES have the power to ascertain whether a law meets constitutional standards, and if the US Supreme Court rules that a state law is unconstitutional, the state loses its power to enforce it.
All constitutional provisions trump the Tenth Amendment, and only where the US law is silent, can the Tenth Amendment become operative. So, in fact, the states have no power, unless the US federal law leaves them a vacuum to operate within.
The general welfare is what the nation determines that it is within the confines of the Constitution; in short those things which do not violate the constraints place upon it by the Bill of Rights.
I won't debate the efficacy of social welfare programs, that isn't the purpose or concern of this discussion, other than to say that the nation through its representatives has decided that providing a social safety net for those less fortunate is in the national interest, an interest which does not infringe upon your individual rights as enumerated.
As in the ACLU's efforts to make sure that every kind of filthy, vulgar, and inflammatory speech and act short of actual mayhem is protected and indeed facilitated by civil authorities? And having the chutzpah to claim that it is vital that such efforts are protected by the First Amendment?
It seems as if in this instance the only tranquillity being ensured is that of the loudest mouths, with the most dispiriting things on ther minds...
And I am well aware that in case after case, the courts have sided with the ACLU and that the baboons are indeed on the verge of taking over the zoo that this country has become. That is nothing to celebrate, even if one happens to be a baboon. It simply means that the Constitution is being used to subvert its own ends, unless I have misread the first three words of my post.
The constitution is, rightfully so, quite concise & to the point. Politics & the courts (both ruled by lawyers) have worked since day one to complicate it in order to justify the need for their guidance.
However, as things come full circle & the courts are forced to actually rule on constitutional provisions it becomes obvious that they truly are simple concepts & thats what they were meant to be. For decades courts supported some crazy gun laws thru convoluted thinking. But once they were forced to focus on the individual right in DC the ONLY thing they could do was find that yes, the second amendment does protect every individuals right to keep & bear arms. They never gave any serious thought to the militia clause as being a limitation or condition of the right. Because its not. Thats just one example, there are many, firearms law is important to me but there are laws infringing most rights that would be struck down immediately if the courts focused on the right in question directly instead of dancing on the fringes with theological type hyperbole.
As Jtur said its all in that preamble. There were & are no guarentees except freedom & liberty. The rest is simply parameters meant to limit Govt in its ability to legislate against us and centralize power. It means what it says & if you need lawyers & dictionaries to grasp it you are trying too hard.
As in the ACLU's efforts to make sure that every kind of filthy, vulgar, and inflammatory speech and act short of actual mayhem is protected and indeed facilitated by civil authorities? And having the chutzpah to claim that it is vital that such efforts are protected by the First Amendment?
Are you referring to the inflammatory speech of daytime talk radio? There is nothing filthy or vulgar on the public airwaves, except for a few hours in the middle of the night. On non-public airwaves, filthy and vulgar speech in print and electronic media is nearly all being delivered by large corporations because it generates huge profits, and the ACLU is right in there defending the right of conservative corporations and shareholders to harvest these ill-gotten gains.
But the United States DOES have the power to ascertain whether a law meets constitutional standards, and if the US Supreme Court rules that a state law is unconstitutional, the state loses its power to enforce it.
That is a rather big if considering the number of times the Court has upheld states based upon the 10th Amendment or the Court's consideration that the Congress had interpreted the Commerce Clause too broadly.
CRS Report: RS20116 - The Commerce Clause as a Limit on Congressional Power to Protect the Environment - NLE (http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/legislative/leg-35.cfm - broken link)
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.
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.
