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.
Jeez... the framers didn't recommend an FAA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Center for Disease Control, or the National Institute of Health for that matter. And, how short sighted for them to forget about putting NASA in the Constitution!
Food and interstate commerce didn't exist in the 18th and 19th century? There was no scarlet fever, smallpox, etc back then?
The framers of the Constitution recommended the inception of the FDA?
Dude, you should read up on some Constitutional history... the commerce clause gives the feds the right to regulate interstate commerce. The necessary and proper clause gives them the right to make laws and regulations to effecutate that power. So, no, in 1787, they did not think of the FDA or EPA or other agencies of that sort. And that is why they made the language so elastic and vague. The argument is over whether the feds have overstepped their power... you are arguing whether they even have that power and that's just an immature argument.
LOL... you guys need to give it up... seriously, regardless of what you believe, the law is not as you may wish it... so drawing up wish lists does nobody any good.
There is nothing in the 10th Amendment that defines which powers that are not delegated to the Congress as specified in Article I. If you want to argue which powers are or are not delegated to the Congress you will need to look else where, which I am sure that you as a strict constructionist should be well capable of doing.
LOL... you guys need to give it up... seriously, regardless of what you believe, the law is not as you may wish it... so drawing up wish lists does nobody any good.
The Constitution is something that is interpreted differently...it's why the Supreme Court votes 5-4 on many issues, or 7-2 or 6-3 for that matter. There's usually several justices who don't see it the same way as the others.
It's all political and biased and it's all about interpretation. Don't know about you...but I think that's pretty dangerous.
There is nothing in the 10th Amendment that defines which powers that are not delegated to the Congress as specified in Article I. If you want to argue which powers are or are not delegated to the Congress you will need to look else where, which I am sure that you as a strict constructionist should be well capable of doing.
No, but it says that the powers that are not given to Congress are reserved for the states and the people.
The powers delegated to Congress are open to interpretation....which seems conflicting at best.
It's all political and biased and it's all about interpretation. Don't know about you...but I think that's pretty dangerous.
Well, I don't think it's dangerous; I think it's reality... and if the court goes cuckoo, the Court can be overruled -- just like in the recent Leadbetter case. if you want your laws to remain static and stuck in the 1700s, be my guest. Me? I'd rather that the Constitution be interpreted in line with the evolving society. Anything less is a recipe for revolution.
Well, I don't think it's dangerous; I think it's reality... and if the court goes cuckoo, the Court can be overruled -- just like in the recent Leadbetter case. if you want your laws to remain static and stuck in the 1700s, be my guest. Me? I'd rather that the Constitution be interpreted in line with the evolving society. Anything less is a recipe for revolution.
I'd prefer to see more frequent amendments to the Constitution...rather than there being so much discretion.
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.