Bill of Rights: Amendment 10

[MisterVeritis]

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.

The individual states created the federal government. The Constitution, a written document identifies what the federal government can do. Its powers are small and limited by the Constitution.

Today the federal government operates as a tyranny no longer inhibited by our written Constitution. Are there any remaining steps we can take short of war, to restore the Constitution's primacy and save the nation?

[Tahuyaman]

It's disturbing, but it's getting to the point where some people hear the words "Bill of Rights" and they think that is some type of racist code.

[Safety]

The framers implemented a procedure to make changes to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed as it was intended, there are zero fucks I give when those changes are not to the liking of those that change their outrage like the wind changes direction.

[Captdon]

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.

The individual states created the federal government. The Constitution, a written document identifies what the federal government can do. Its powers are small and limited by the Constitution.

Today the federal government operates as a tyranny no longer inhibited by our written Constitution. Are there any remaining steps we can take short of war, to restore the Constitution's primacy and save the nation?



We can elect the right people. Barring that we need some amount of violence.


Look how close we cam to electing HRC. That would have required violence.

[Safety]

LoL

[Captdon]

The framers implemented a procedure to make changes to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed as it was intended, there are zero $#@!s I give when those changes are not to the liking of those that change their outrage like the wind changes direction.

The powers the federal government weren't by amendment. It was taken. You won't see the difference but others will.

[Safety]

The powers the federal government weren't by amendment. It was taken. You won't see the difference but others will.

Taken by whom, taken where, and taken how?

[Chris]

The framers implemented a procedure to make changes to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed as it was intended, there are zero fucks I give when those changes are not to the liking of those that change their outrage like the wind changes direction.


Where, for example, is the federal government granted authoritative power over education in the Constitution or its amendments?

[Safety]

Where, for example, is the federal government granted authoritative power over education in the Constitution or its amendments?

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

- Congress can fund that effort through the laying of taxes

- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Therefore, Congress can/and did create a Department of Education.

You’re welcome. Yet another fine example of why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry....

[Chris]

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

- Congress can fund that effort through the laying of taxes

- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Therefore, Congress can/and did create a Department of Education.

You’re welcome. Yet another fine example of why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry....


It was a Constitutional question.


- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Those are not Constitutional but personal opinions, fine as opinions, but not accepted opinion, not Constitutional, not an authoritative power of the government.

Thus there's no logic to supprt you're "Therefore."

Certainly it is true Congres can and does a lot. But the question here is whether or not it's constitutional or left to the states and the people.

[Safety]

It was a Constitutional question.



Those are not Constitutional but personal opinions, fine as opinions, but not accepted opinion, not Constitutional, not an authoritative power of the government.

Thus there's no logic to supprt you're "Therefore."

Certainly it is true Congres can and does a lot. But the question here is whether or not it's constitutional or left to the states and the people.

Let’s see...Congress passed it, the POTUS signed it...in ‘79. When are you going to take the issue to the SCOTUS?

[Chris]

Let’s see...Congress passed it, the POTUS signed it...in ‘79. When are you going to take the issue to the SCOTUS?

The question was whether or not it's constitutional. You keep begging that question.

[Captdon]

It was a Constitutional question.



Those are not Constitutional but personal opinions, fine as opinions, but not accepted opinion, not Constitutional, not an authoritative power of the government.

Thus there's no logic to supprt you're "Therefore."

Certainly it is true Congres can and does a lot. But the question here is whether or not it's constitutional or left to the states and the people.

A goof talking about something he doesn't know anything about.

[Captdon]

The question was whether or not it's constitutional. You keep begging that question.

He doesn't know anything past his own prejudices.

[Tahuyaman]

Where, for example, is the federal government granted authoritative power over education in the Constitution or its amendments?
The left can use the general welfare clause to justify anything.

[Safety]

The question was whether or not it's constitutional. You keep begging that question.

That’s because you are asking a dumb question. Like I explained above, the framers put into place procedures to make adjustments to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed, it is “Constitutional”. However, if anyone has any doubts on whether something is Constitutional, they can take their case to the SCOTUS, who are the final arbiters of the Law.

Now, it has been explained in detail to you, I’m sure you continue to argue some minutiae idea to try and salvage your position, but this will be the last response from me to you on this point.

[Safety]

He doesn't know anything past his own prejudices.


A goof talking about something he doesn't know anything about.


I can always tell when I have totally bitch slapped your beliefs...you herp derp around the forum leaving piles of shit like an untrained puppy.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's disturbing, but it's getting to the point where some people hear the words "Bill of Rights" and they think that is some type of racist code.
Worse is when people hear "Bill of Rights" and think the Constitution gives us our rights or that our rights are limited by the Constitution.

[Tahuyaman]

Worse is when people hear "Bill of Rights" and think the Constitution gives us our rights or that our rights are limited by the Constitution.
I would tend to agree with you on that. The purpose of the US constitution is to place restraints upon government.

[Chris]

That’s because you are asking a dumb question. Like I explained above, the framers put into place procedures to make adjustments to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed, it is “Constitutional”. However, if anyone has any doubts on whether something is Constitutional, they can take their case to the SCOTUS, who are the final arbiters of the Law.

Now, it has been explained in detail to you, I’m sure you continue to argue some minutiae idea to try and salvage your position, but this will be the last response from me to you on this point.


Where were those procedures followed with regard to education? I see no amendment granting the federal government any power over education.

Your personal opinion of the value of education and how to implement it have nothing to do with constitutional procedures.

The question is the question of this thread. It's your answer that's dumb.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would tend to agree with you on that. The purpose of the US constitution is to place restraints upon government.
Correct. As both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution point out, "We, the People" have unalienable rights. No restrictions. OTOH, sometimes one person's rights conflict with another's and that is where government comes in. The whole "right to swing my fist ends at your nose" idea.

That said, states can come together as group, using the Federal government as a coordinator to do certain things such as education. It isn't cost efficient for each state to write their own textbooks on every subject, on every grade level. Working together cuts costs and improves efficiency. The key here is the difference between willingness to work together and mandatory. Obviously the Civil War empowered the Feds to a level not desired by the Founders....well, most of the Founders.

[Orion Rules]

Taken by whom, taken where, and taken how?

By that which did not want more local control, but that a more centralized form of 'governing' would replace the Articles of Confederation, to hand the We the People a con, especially, since the Federal Reserve arrived, constant wars for a nation.

[Max Rockatansky]

By that which did not want more local control, but that a more centralized form of 'governing' would replace the Articles of Confederation, to hand the We the People a con, especially, since the Federal Reserve arrived, constant wars for a nation.
The states freely ratified the Constitution. The problem wasn't ratification of the Constitution, but the fact, as noted historians often note, "the seeds of the Civil War were written into the Constitution".

Lefties often complain that slavery was allowed under the Constitution but they fail to accept the fact there'd be no Constitution without the acceptance of slavery. We'd have either been 13 different states or 2-3 grouped states.

[Peter1469]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress<<Back (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html) | Table of Contents (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (https://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[these powers are]


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTROAD);
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Cletus]

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

"General welfare" as defined at the time the Constitution was authored meant those powers specifically enumerated.
It did not, should not and does not mean whatever the government wants it to mean.

THAT is an example of "why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry".

[Chris]

"General welfare" as defined at the time the Constitution was authored meant those powers specifically enumerated.
It did not, should not and does not mean whatever the government wants it to mean.

THAT is an example of "why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry".


Right, exactly, it limited those powers to acts that benefitted the general welfare, not special interests.

[Safety]

"General welfare" as defined at the time the Constitution was authored meant those powers specifically enumerated.
It did not, should not and does not mean whatever the government wants it to mean.

THAT is an example of "why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry".

If that was the case, then the framers would have locked down the Constitution when they created it. But since they created it with the ability to make changes, i.e the amendment process, and if changes are made to it following those procedures, that would mean the changes are valid, therefore, Constitutional.

It doesn’t really matter if you agree with the changes or not, now does it?

[Agent Zero]

As I've said before, if the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be literal, we'd all be trading slaves* and carrying muskets.

*Fully understanding some forum members may be.

[Max Rockatansky]

"General welfare" as defined at the time the Constitution was authored meant those powers specifically enumerated.
It did not, should not and does not mean whatever the government wants it to mean.

THAT is an example of "why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry".It has a specific legal meaning.

Example: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare
General WelfareThe concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment). Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Madison%2c+James), the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hamilton%2c+Alexander) maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided,"[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." "[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."
Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

[Chris]

If that was the case, then the framers would have locked down the Constitution when they created it. But since they created it with the ability to make changes, i.e the amendment process, and if changes are made to it following those procedures, that would mean the changes are valid, therefore, Constitutional.

It doesn’t really matter if you agree with the changes or not, now does it?


It can be extended or further limited by constitutional procedures as you argued earlier. That hasn't happened for education.

Cletus's point remains the same. The general welfare clause is not itself a power granted the government, but a limiting qualification on its enumerated and amended powers.

[Captdon]

It was a Constitutional question.



Those are not Constitutional but personal opinions, fine as opinions, but not accepted opinion, not Constitutional, not an authoritative power of the government.

Thus there's no logic to supprt you're "Therefore."

Certainly it is true Congres can and does a lot. But the question here is whether or not it's constitutional or left to the states and the people.

Some lights are brighter than others. Mine shining like a full noon day Sun doesn't mean that everyone's does.

[Captdon]

As I've said before, if the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be literal, we'd all be trading slaves* and carrying muskets.

*Fully understanding some forum members may be.

We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery. It couldn't be done by a law. "Arms" is "Arms." They didn't say we had the right to muskets.

There, you've learned two thing you didn't know. Write them down.

[Cletus]

It has a specific legal meaning.

The only thing that matters is what it meant in 1787. When the phrase was included in the Constitution, it meant exactly what I said. It empowered Congress to act on the powers specifically enumerated... unless Madison didn't know what he was talking about.

[MisterVeritis]

The general welfare clause in the Constitution, as interpreted today means we no longer have a Constitutional government. The government can do as it wishes. We live under tyranny. No State would have ratified a Constitution under those circumstances. It is a fraud perpetrated by a rapacious federal government.

It will take an Article v process to repair the enormous damage this fraud has done to the nation. Or it will take another successful rebellion.

[Max Rockatansky]

People who claim Americans live under tyranny obviously have never left our nation and seen tyranny.

[Ethereal]

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

- Congress can fund that effort through the laying of taxes

- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Therefore, Congress can/and did create a Department of Education.

You’re welcome. Yet another fine example of why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry....


Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank, 15 February 1791 by Thomas Jefferson

...To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.’ that is to say ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare’. For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them...

[Ethereal]

People who claim Americans live under tyranny obviously have never left our nation and seen tyranny.
Tyranny, once it is established, may vary with respect to its severity.

[Chris]

Soft tyranny, the only kind that could happen given liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, universalism--a deady witches brew against liberty.

[Ethereal]

...they can take their case to the SCOTUS, who are the final arbiters of the Law.


"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson

[Orion Rules]

People who claim Americans live under tyranny obviously have never left our nation and seen tyranny.

It is every penny for the money.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html

The Bill of Rights a later edition to something that was conceived in secrecy.

[Max Rockatansky]

Tyranny, once it is established, may vary with respect to its severity.
Well said, but still doesn't mean we live in a tyrannical nation. Please define a nation under tyranny.

[Ethereal]

The states freely ratified the Constitution.

Based on false arguments and cloistered elites hiding their true intentions.

[countryboy]

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.

The individual states created the federal government. The Constitution, a written document identifies what the federal government can do. Its powers are small and limited by the Constitution.

Today the federal government operates as a tyranny no longer inhibited by our written Constitution. Are there any remaining steps we can take short of war, to restore the Constitution's primacy and save the nation?



The only thing, short of war, is in your signature. The war of the ballot box is lost. If this wasn't clear after two terms of Obama, it certainly was after the midterms.

[Max Rockatansky]

Based on false arguments and cloistered elites hiding their true intentions.
So all of them, all of the leaders, the Founders and the citizens were stupid but you are smart and know better? Interesting but disagreed.

[Ethereal]

Well said, but still doesn't mean we live in a tyrannical nation. Please define a nation under tyranny.

How about we start with the fact that the US government assumes for itself the power to regulate what individual adults put into their own bodies, even to the point of arresting and imprisoning them. The US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, largely because the US government has criminalized certain drugs which it arbitrarily deems to be too dangerous for personal consumption or use. This is so insanely tyrannical that it requires little elaboration, in my humble opinion.

Or we could talk about the US government's mass domestic spying program, which invades the privacy of every single person in this country to one degree or another. The NSA has probably stored every text, call, or email you've ever made in its vast data centers. That's beyond anything the Soviets could have dreamed of.

Or we could talk about the US government's monopoly on money, which is so authoritarian and corrupt that its very existence in a supposedly "free" country beggars belief. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson considered a mere national bank, which issued no money at all, to be a harbinger of elitist tyranny. Just imagine their shock to see the modern central bank which effectively controls the entire world's monetary system.

Or the CIA and the FBI who are allowed to operate with virtual impunity behind a wall of state secrecy. Do I really need to provide a list of all the awful things those agencies have done in their long histories?

US government starting massive wars based on lies and fraud that end up costing the country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Need I go on?

[Ethereal]

So all of them, all of the leaders, the Founders and the citizens were stupid but you are smart and know better? Interesting but disagreed.

Except all the founders and citizens did not support the constitution. And many of the principal objections to the constitution have come to fruition.

[Ethereal]

"The great easily form associations; the poor and middling class form them with difficulty. If the elections be by plurality, — as probably will be the case in this state, — it is almost certain none but the great will be chosen, for they easily unite their interests: the common people will divide, and their divisions will be promoted by the others. There will be scarcely a chance of their uniting in any other but some great man, unless in some popular demagogue, who will probably be destitute of principle. A substantial yeoman, of sense and discernment, will hardly ever be chosen. From these remarks, it appears that the government will fall into the hands of the few and the great. This will be a government of oppression." --Melancton Smith

Now tell me that isn't exactly what the US has become.

[Chris]

The only thing, short of war, is in your signature. The war of the ballot box is lost. If this wasn't clear after two terms of Obama, it certainly was after the midterms.


I'm coming to the point where I think even that, the states convening in an Article V convention. Conservatives/libertarians are right in their arguments about the Constitution and the intentions of the founding father, liberals wrong but liberals don't care and politicians ignore the Constitution. As AOC meaninglessly put it "There's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right," There's just no, imo, stopping that with Buckleyan Stop! The extremes of what's fair will prevail, for a time, over what prudently works.

[donttread]

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.

The individual states created the federal government. The Constitution, a written document identifies what the federal government can do. Its powers are small and limited by the Constitution.

Today the federal government operates as a tyranny no longer inhibited by our written Constitution. Are there any remaining steps we can take short of war, to restore the Constitution's primacy and save the nation?



Well said. In fact the social programming I support should be handled at the state level for this reason and for practicality? I believe we need to vote the "two major gangs " out of power. Or more realistically form a coalition congress with some LP components. As long as people feel trapped and compelled to vote "A or B" or nothing at all nothing much will change. if you view the dems and repubs as one party they can screw up everything, rob us blind, lie upon lies and still get 95% of the vote. What a gig?

[Safety]

Thomas Jefferson quote

Yet, they had the power to change it, but they didn't.

[Safety]

regarding SCOTUS

Yet again, they had the power to not make the SCOTUS the final arbiter, but they didn't change it. My opinion...Thomas Jefferson may be worth praising to some, but to others he was also a slaveholder at a time when you could choose not to own a slave. Judgement counts in all aspects, not just in those one may chose to agree with.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The powers the federal government weren't by amendment. It was taken. You won't see the difference but others will.

This statement is incoherent.

The Constitution granted many powers to the federal government and equally importantly, stated that if a power was not granted explicitly to the fedgov, then the fedgov could not exercise that power.

The Constitution did not grant to the fedgov aby authority over:

Education
Healthcare
Welfare
Retirement
And Drugs,
To name the five biggest tents of federal abuse.

[Mister D]

Yet again, they had the power to not make the SCOTUS the final arbiter, but they didn't change it. My opinion...Thomas Jefferson may be worth praising to some, but to others he was also a slaveholder at a time when you could choose not to own a slave. Judgement counts in all aspects, not just in those one may chose to agree with.

So if you were to make a mistake in judgement (I'm sure you've made many) one would be justified in dismissing everything else you have to say? Or should one address the merits of your argument rather than dwell on irrelevancies?

[Safety]

So if you were to make a mistake in judgement (I'm sure you've made many) one would be justified in dismissing everything else you have to say? Or should one address the merits of your argument rather than dwell on irrelevancies?

It depends, a mistake could consist of stepping on someone's foot or it could be shooting someone. One can be dismissed with an apology, the other...not so much.

[Sergeant Gleed]

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

- Congress can fund that effort through the laying of taxes

- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Therefore, Congress can/and did create a Department of Education.

You’re welcome. Yet another fine example of why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry....

Well, that's all happy horse Hillary.

Article 1 does not grant power to regulate education to the Congress, therefore Congress does not have that power.

This FACT was pointed out by President Thomas Jefferson, in his Sixth State of the Union address. You can look it up. He requested that Congress write and pass an amendment to the Constitution to usurp that power to the Congress and send it to the states for ratification.

Congress did not argue that they already had that authrity, for it did not, and since no such amendment was ever passed or ratified, the Congress STILL has no such authority.

The very act of enumerating a list of specific powers in the Constitution totally destroys any and all arguments from you fascist that the Congress is granted an unlimited range of power under the imaginary "general welfareclause".

Even that hero of you fascists, Hamilton, agreed that the Congressional powers were limited to the enumerated powers of Section, Article 8.

BTW, I noticed you foolishly telegraphed your obsession with rights.

Humans have rights.

Governments have powers and authorities granted to them by the people's consent, or those governments have stolen those powers by force through the actions of gangsters, but under no circumstances is the exercise of that authority ever a "right" of the government or its agents.

[Mister D]

It depends, a mistake could consist of stepping on someone's foot or it could be shooting someone. One can be dismissed with an apology, the other...not so much.

Could you elaborate on exactly why Jefferson's presumed lack of judgment in this case is reason to dismiss his view of judicial power?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yet again, they had the power to not make the SCOTUS the final arbiter, but they didn't change it. My opinion...Thomas Jefferson may be worth praising to some, but to others he was also a slaveholder at a time when you could choose not to own a slave. Judgement counts in all aspects, not just in those one may chose to agree with.

Is that like how Obama could have chosen to not be a traitor, but didn't, or how Occasional Cote could have chosen to have brain, but didn't want one, opting instead to go back to line for more teeth?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Let’s see...Congress passed it, the POTUS signed it...in ‘79. When are you going to take the issue to the SCOTUS?

So what you're saying is that the Congress can override the Constitution and it's okay if the courts go along with scam.

Just like they did with the murder of 50,000,000 people since 1973, right?

And the Justice Taney ruled that property didn't have rights, and your political party was cool with that, too.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The left can use the general welfare clause to justify anything.

The general welfare clause is as real as the Santa Claus.

It keeps giving, doesn't it?

[alexa]

lol

[Safety]

So what you're saying is that the Congress can override the Constitution and it's okay if the courts go along with scam.

Just like they did with the murder of 50,000,000 people since 1973, right?

And the Justice Taney ruled that property didn't have rights, and your political party was cool with that, too.


Is that like how Obama could have chosen to not be a traitor, but didn't, or how Occasional Cote could have chosen to have brain, but didn't want one, opting instead to go back to line for more teeth?


Well, that's all happy horse Hillary.

Article 1 does not grant power to regulate education to the Congress, therefore Congress does not have that power.

This FACT was pointed out by President Thomas Jefferson, in his Sixth State of the Union address. You can look it up. He requested that Congress write and pass an amendment to the Constitution to usurp that power to the Congress and send it to the states for ratification.

Congress did not argue that they already had that authrity, for it did not, and since no such amendment was ever passed or ratified, the Congress STILL has no such authority.

The very act of enumerating a list of specific powers in the Constitution totally destroys any and all arguments from you fascist that the Congress is granted an unlimited range of power under the imaginary "general welfareclause".

Even that hero of you fascists, Hamilton, agreed that the Congressional powers were limited to the enumerated powers of Section, Article 8.

BTW, I noticed you foolishly telegraphed your obsession with rights.

Humans have rights.

Governments have powers and authorities granted to them by the people's consent, or those governments have stolen those powers by force through the actions of gangsters, but under no circumstances is the exercise of that authority ever a "right" of the government or its agents.

*yawn*

[Sergeant Gleed]

That’s because you are asking a dumb question. Like I explained above, the framers put into place procedures to make adjustments to the Constitution, as long as those procedures are followed, it is “Constitutional”. However, if anyone has any doubts on whether something is Constitutional, they can take their case to the SCOTUS, who are the final arbiters of the Law.

Now, it has been explained in detail to you, I’m sure you continue to argue some minutiae idea to try and salvage your position, but this will be the last response from me to you on this point.
AHHH!!! So you CAN cite the Amendment that grants the a Congress to usurp educational authority from the sates.

Good.

Cite it.

[Safety]

Could you elaborate on exactly why Jefferson's presumed lack of judgment in this case is reason to dismiss his view of judicial power?

It was my opinion, and he is one voice expressing that view. If more people agreed, why didn't they change the document to make it abundantly clear?

[Sergeant Gleed]

*yawn*
Yes, we all know how children are put to sleep when they are too stupid to understand the arguments.

I've put dogs to sleep, to, and they are way smarter than Rodents.

[Safety]

AHHH!!! So you CAN cite the Amendment that grants the a Congress to usurp educational authority from the sates.

Good.

Cite it.

How about instead I offer your post as proof that an uneducated populace is the reason the welfare clause was even enumerated into the document in the first place.

Those sly framers, they knew you centuries before you even existed.

[Safety]

Yes, we all know how children are put to sleep when they are too stupid to understand the arguments.

I've put dogs to sleep, to, and they are way smarter than Rodents.

That's nice, Cooter.

[Orion Rules]

Yet again, they had the power to not make the SCOTUS the final arbiter, but they didn't change it. My opinion...Thomas Jefferson may be worth praising to some, but to others he was also a slaveholder at a time when you could choose not to own a slave. Judgement counts in all aspects, not just in those one may chose to agree with.

Safety, society was not ready for a slave 'holder' such as Thomas Jefferson to send what he deemed should be free, but into a society that would take those same souls set free just to be taken elsewhere, as the true slaveholders were not planning on going away.

Thomas Jefferson was a true man of freedom. The idea that he felt slavery was a right is a ridiculous statement. The institution of slavery by then had gained a hold on America which was paramount.

Whites had not only been indentured servants to pay back their gratitude, but for a lifetime: > "They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America", by Michael Hoffman.


> "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America" by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh

White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.

Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.

This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface.'"


> "To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland New Edition" by Sean O'Callaghan

(Credits for the use of certain phrases or titles used, derived from Amazon.)


It is unfair to blame white people for all the cares the world has put upon just everyone.

A freer society there was when the separate races were living where they were first put, but expansions taken in by colonialism, of what type of society predominated?

Big money rich earners where an ear of corn will be worth more than the dulled down money can't buy two cents to days for a curse by Tutankhamun was the inherited.

[Mister D]

It was my opinion, and he is one voice expressing that view. If more people agreed, why didn't they change the document to make it abundantly clear?

Yes, it is your opinion but I'm asking you how it pertains to Jefferson's view of judicial power and it's potential for misuse. What was the purpose of bringing up the fact that Jefferson owned slaves?

[Tahuyaman]

The general welfare clause is as real as the Santa Claus.

It keeps giving, doesn't it?

It does. It can mean anything anyone want.

[Orion Rules]

Numbers 33, first are the Kings:

Avaris and the city of Ram'eses,

'The plague sent by art': Moses.

[Dr. Who]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html) | Table of Contents (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (https://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[these powers are]


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTROAD);
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I think that the devil is in the detail. Section 8 does not say [these powers are], it just lists powers, nor does it say that these powers are "restricted to" the following. Two of the primary interpreters of the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison) didn't agree on the meaning of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton indicated that it should cover education. In light of the fact that these important contemporaries of the Constitution were not in agreement on its meaning, what hope do subsequent generations have? However, I have to say that between the two, only Hamilton was a lawyer and educated in the legal construction of wordings.

[Cletus]

Hamilton was an idiot. Madison was the principal architect of the Constitution.

[Ethereal]

It was my opinion, and he is one voice expressing that view. If more people agreed, why didn't they change the document to make it abundantly clear?
I think it's the other way around.

If they had wanted the SCOTUS to be the "final arbiter" of the constitution, then why didn't they just say so?

And if the SCOTUS really is the final arbiter of the constitution, then why did the framers make the judiciary the weakest branch of government?

Suppose the SCOTUS ruled that something the congress did was unconstitutional. Then further suppose that the congress decided to ignore that ruling. What constitutional recourse would the SCOTUS have? The opinions of SCOTUS derive the entirety of their force from the sufferance of the congress, the executive, and the State governments. It has no way of enforcing its rulings independently. Clearly, then, it cannot be an arbiter of the constitution, final or otherwise.

[Ethereal]

I think that the devil is in the detail. Section 8 does not say [these powers are], it just lists powers, nor does it say that these powers are "restricted to" the following. Two of the primary interpreters of the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison) didn't agree on the meaning of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton indicated that it should cover education. In light of the fact that these important contemporaries of the Constitution were not in agreement on its meaning, what hope do subsequent generations have? However, I have to say that between the two, only Hamilton was a lawyer and educated in the legal construction of wordings.
Are you trying to suggest that James Madison didn't understand how to construe legal language?

[Ethereal]

Hamilton was an idiot. Madison was the principal architect of the Constitution.
Hamilton was many things. An idiot is definitely not one of them.

[Common]

First we start here....Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress.

Now we have the understanding that Congress has power, we sprinkle on some of this:

- Congress has the right to promote the general welfare

- Congress can fund that effort through the laying of taxes

- Effective education of the population promotes individual welfare and is a boon to the economy at large

- Effective education of the population is best managed by a centralized department

Therefore, Congress can/and did create a Department of Education.

You’re welcome. Yet another fine example of why an educated citizenry is better than uneducated citizenry....

Ok we agree education is a good thing, but how come democrats want millions of uneducated illegals in the country
They tell us those uneducated are great for the economy

[Safety]

I think it's the other way around.

If they had wanted the SCOTUS to be the "final arbiter" of the constitution, then why didn't they just say so?

And if the SCOTUS really is the final arbiter of the constitution, then why did the framers make the judiciary the weakest branch of government?

Suppose the SCOTUS ruled that something the congress did was unconstitutional. Then further suppose that the congress decided to ignore that ruling. What constitutional recourse would the SCOTUS have? The opinions of SCOTUS derive the entirety of their force from the sufferance of the congress, the executive, and the State governments. It has no way of enforcing its rulings independently. Clearly, then, it cannot be an arbiter of the constitution, final or otherwise.

Weakest branch? I don't believe so, for it's the only branch that enjoys an appointment for life. I think this argument goes back to a previous one we had regarding nullification. If a state has the right to nullify any federal law they deem unconstitutional, then why even have a Constitution in the first place? The same with the SCOTUS, if they are the weakest branch, and Congress chooses not to abide by their ruling, then Congress has in effect nullified the SCOTUS, thus the Constitution. At that point, what difference does it make regarding the Constitutionality of any law or action? Democracy works because there is a good faith effort that everyone will play by the rules, but when people get upset at the outcome and want to change the rules, that's when Democracy breaks down.

[Safety]

Ok we agree education is a good thing, but how come democrats want millions of uneducated illegals in the country
They tell us those uneducated are great for the economy

I thought Trump said he loved the uneducated? Are you suggesting that he only likes a certain demographic of the uneducated?

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought Trump said he loved the uneducated? Are you suggesting that he only likes a certain demographic of the uneducated?
Correct, he did. In fact what he said was that he loved "the poorly educated" and, as the link below proves, they love him back.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/24/donald-trump-nevada-poorly-educated/80860078/
Donald Trump speaks what's on his mind, often as soon as it appears there. And after winning his third-straight contest in Nevada Tuesday, Trump credited his "poorly educated" supporters, in part, for the win.
"We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," he said during his victory speech (https://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/80842732/).
Let's set aside the fact that "poorly educated" is not the same as "less educated" and look at the numbers:
Trump did well across the board in Nevada, garnering 45.9% of the vote (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/24/analysis-donald-trump-does-impossible-again/80843932/), but he did even better among voters with a high school education or less. Fifty-seven percent of those voters supported him, according to entrance polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nv/Rep), courtesy of CNN.
The next closest candidate among high-school-or-less voters was Ted Cruz, who had 20%.
That's a sizable gap of 37 percentage points.
Trump didn't just win with less educated voters, or "poorly educated," as he called them, he crushed it.


It's true Trump did perform the best of any candidate among highly educated voters, too, but not nearly so well.
He gained 37% of the votes from those with postgraduate education, with Marco Rubio earning 29%
As much as Trump loves the "poorly educated," he didn't want to join them: The Ivy League grad got his degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/19/trump-mccain-war-heroes-pows-editorials-debates/30385659/).
Trump's "poorly educated" line sparked much reaction, including smirking (https://twitter.com/WillMcAvoyACN/status/702501826873020417) and shock (https://twitter.com/HS_BHGP/status/702371395880292352).
But some — journalists, mostly — noted that Trump's proud embrace of poorly less educated voters and the resulting shock may only cause those less educated voters to embrace Trump all the more.

[Chris]

I think that the devil is in the detail. Section 8 does not say [these powers are], it just lists powers, nor does it say that these powers are "restricted to" the following. Two of the primary interpreters of the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison) didn't agree on the meaning of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton indicated that it should cover education. In light of the fact that these important contemporaries of the Constitution were not in agreement on its meaning, what hope do subsequent generations have? However, I have to say that between the two, only Hamilton was a lawyer and educated in the legal construction of wordings.


You forgot amendment 10 that does say that.

[Cletus]

Hamilton was many things. An idiot is definitely not one of them.
The idiot got himself killed in a duel. You can't get much more idiotic than that. "I think I will just stand here and let this guy shoot me."

[Sergeant Gleed]

How about instead I offer your post as proof that an uneducated populace is the reason the welfare clause was even enumerated into the document in the first place.

Those sly framers, they knew you centuries before you even existed.

Your posts are proof that a stupid populace is easily led and rapidly enslaved.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I think that the devil is in the detail. Section 8 does not say [these powers are], it just lists powers, nor does it say that these powers are "restricted to" the following. Two of the primary interpreters of the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison) didn't agree on the meaning of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton indicated that it should cover education. In light of the fact that these important contemporaries of the Constitution were not in agreement on its meaning, what hope do subsequent generations have? However, I have to say that between the two, only Hamilton was a lawyer and educated in the legal construction of wordings.

THE TENTH AMENDMENT says those enumerated powers are THE ONLY powers the Congress gets.

Then again, you damn people can never read the operative half oh the Second Amendment, why would we think you could make it all the way down to the Tenth?

Both Hamilton and Madison agreed that it was perfectly batty to enumerate Congressional powers if there were supposed to be no limits on the powers Congress could wield.

And....there's no General walfare clause" that grants any power to anyone. That PHRASE was in the predatory statement of Article I, Section 8 to explain the foundational reasoning behind the powers that were actually and explicitly granted.

Explain why the stares would have ratified a Constitution the ceded to the central government power TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING. Include in your answer some smidgen of a spark of recognition thst those same officials voting to ratify the Constitution had just endured a war against a tyrannical king who DID HAVE unlimited power over them.

Good luck with that.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I think it's the other way around.

If they had wanted the SCOTUS to be the "final arbiter" of the constitution, then why didn't they just say so?

And if the SCOTUS really is the final arbiter of the constitution, then why did the framers make the judiciary the weakest branch of government?

Suppose the SCOTUS ruled that something the congress did was unconstitutional. Then further suppose that the congress decided to ignore that ruling. What constitutional recourse would the SCOTUS have? The opinions of SCOTUS derive the entirety of their force from the sufferance of the congress, the executive, and the State governments. It has no way of enforcing its rulings independently. Clearly, then, it cannot be an arbiter of the constitution, final or otherwise.

SCOTUS has the power of no.

That's it.

It unlawfully usurped the power to legislte.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Hamilton was many things. An idiot is definitely not one of them.
How'd he die?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Weakest branch? I don't believe so, for it's the only branch that enjoys an appointment for life. I think this argument goes back to a previous one we had regarding nullification. If a state has the right to nullify any federal law they deem unconstitutional, then why even have a Constitution in the first place? The same with the SCOTUS, if they are the weakest branch, and Congress chooses not to abide by their ruling, then Congress has in effect nullified the SCOTUS, thus the Constitution. At that point, what difference does it make regarding the Constitutionality of any law or action? Democracy works because there is a good faith effort that everyone will play by the rules, but when people get upset at the outcome and want to change the rules, that's when Democracy breaks down.

So Safety is betraying his fellow fascists and declaring the the Sanctuary Rebellion is actually inconstitutional.

I bet he did not know he was confessing thst.

[Dr. Who]

Are you trying to suggest that James Madison didn't understand how to construe legal language?
I'm just suggesting that he was not educated in the law.

[Dr. Who]

You forgot amendment 10 that does say that.
The 10th was passed in December of 1791, however:


Federal role in educationAs for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but a historical precedent of central government involvement does exist.
In 1787, the Continental Congress, the central government of the United States between 1776 and 1787, passed the Northwest Ordinance (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/northwest-ordinance/), which became the governing document for Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.
The ordinance included a provision encouraging the creation of schools as a key component of “good government and the happiness of mankind.” Just two years earlier, the Land Ordinance of 1785 (http://www.in.gov/history/2478.htm) required land to be reserved in townships for the building of schools.
The role of the federal government in general grew much larger after the Great Depression and World War II, but this growth largely excluded K-12 education (http://lwv.org/content/history-federal-government-public-education-where-have-we-been-and-how-did-we-get-here) until the 1960s. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson included education policy (https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024003004) in his vision of a “Great Society (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/lyndonbjohnson).”
https://theconversation.com/federal-role-in-education-has-a-long-history-74807

Clearly, the notion that the central government should be encouraging education existed before the Constitution was written. Whereas trade agreements, which can only be made by the Federal Government, often include provisions that in exchange for dropping tariffs on products or services that certain industry must operate in the domestic environment, thereby providing employment. In order to achieve this, there has to be some way to guarantee that the appropriate level of skilled/educated workers are available. A nation, today, in particular, that cannot guarantee a sufficiently educated workforce will lose out on investment.

[Chris]

The 10th was passed in December of 1791, however:


Federal role in educationAs for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but a historical precedent of central government involvement does exist.
In 1787, the Continental Congress, the central government of the United States between 1776 and 1787, passed the Northwest Ordinance (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/northwest-ordinance/), which became the governing document for Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.
The ordinance included a provision encouraging the creation of schools as a key component of “good government and the happiness of mankind.” Just two years earlier, the Land Ordinance of 1785 (http://www.in.gov/history/2478.htm) required land to be reserved in townships for the building of schools.
The role of the federal government in general grew much larger after the Great Depression and World War II, but this growth largely excluded K-12 education (http://lwv.org/content/history-federal-government-public-education-where-have-we-been-and-how-did-we-get-here) until the 1960s. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson included education policy (https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024003004) in his vision of a “Great Society (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/lyndonbjohnson).”
https://theconversation.com/federal-role-in-education-has-a-long-history-74807

Clearly, the notion that the central government should be encouraging education existed before the Constitution was written. Whereas trade agreements, which can only be made by the Federal Government, often include provisions that in exchange for dropping tariffs on products or services that certain industry must operate in the domestic environment, thereby providing employment. In order to achieve this, there has to be some way to guarantee that the appropriate level of skilled/educated workers are available. A nation, today, in particular, that cannot guarantee a sufficiently educated workforce will lose out on investment.


Yes, I know when it was passed...as an amendment to the Constitution, thereby following constitutional procedures as laid out even by Safety. It is therefore part of the Constitution and limits powers to those enumerated.



As for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but a historical precedent of central government involvement does exist....

"As for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution"--enough said. The Continental Congress was a previous government. The Constitution does not grant the government any authority over education.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I know when it was passed...as an amendment to the Constitution, thereby following constitutional procedures as laid out even by Safety. It is therefore part of the Constitution and limits powers to those enumerated.




"As for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution"--enough said. The Continental Congress was a previous government. The Constitution does not grant the government any authority over education.

Talk about not addressing the point - if the members of the Continental Congress who were many of the same people involved in the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution believed that education was an important thing from a Federal perspective and the success of nations now tends to depend on their ability to provide the level of skill and education that investment demands, all of this grousing about Federal involvement in encouraging higher educational standards is really illogical.

[Chris]

Talk about not addressing the point - if the members of the Continental Congress who were many of the same people involved in the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution believed that education was an important thing from a Federal perspective and the success of nations now tends to depend on their ability to provide the level of skill and education that investment demands, all of this grousing about Federal involvement in encouraging higher educational standards is really illogical.

I addressed your two points directly. You can pretend I did but anyone can read my response and see I did.

It does not matter that some of the same people were part of the Continental Congress as those who signed the Constitution and later amended it. The meaning is taken strictly from the words used at the time and what was meant by those who signed off on them. The Constitution was counter-revolutionary, so they meant different things in two different contexts.

Who, everyone thinks education is important. Stop arguing that as if anyone disagreed. While all agree on that, no everyone agrees on how it should be implemented. We know Jefferson, for example, believed education best handled at the local level.

The Constitution enumerates powers granted the government. Amendment 10 says that it, the rest go to the states or the people. Period. That's what the words say.

[MisterVeritis]

The 10th was passed in December of 1791, however:
Federal role in education

As for the federal government’s role, education is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but a historical precedent of central government involvement does exist.
In 1787, the Continental Congress, the central government of the United States between 1776 and 1787, passed the Northwest Ordinance (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/northwest-ordinance/), which became the governing document for Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota.

Those were territories. Not states. The federal government has no Constitutional role to play.

[Dr. Who]

Those were territories. Not states. The federal government has no Constitutional role to play.

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.Agreed. To be fair, when it comes to reading the Constitution, the political partisans of both major parties tend to cherry-pick from it and bounce back and forth on the issues of "strict reading" versus "intent".

[Chris]

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.

Only the words as written and meant by the writers and signers matter.

I think you confuse the general welfare clause as a power granted when it is a limitation imposed on enumerated powers.

The 2nd amendment is likewise a limitation on the powers of the government.

There is no contradiction but in your imaginative interpretations.

[MisterVeritis]

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.
The Constitution is very specific about what the federal government is allowed to do. In the case of education, the federal government has no Constitutional role to play. In the case of self-defense, the Second Amendment is a continuation.

[Dr. Who]

Only the words as written and meant by the writers and signers matter.

I think you confuse the general welfare clause as a power granted when it is a limitation imposed on enumerated powers.

The 2nd amendment is likewise a limitation on the powers of the government.

There is no contradiction but in your imaginative interpretations.
Sure, that's why the continued justification of the almost absolute right to own weapons that were inconceivable in the 18th century requires a linguistic diagram to contradict the simple meaning of the words and the historically specific intent.

[Dr. Who]

The Constitution is very specific about what the federal government is allowed to do. In the case of education, the federal government has no Constitutional role to play. In the case of self-defense, the Second Amendment is a continuation.
I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.

[Chris]

Sure, that's why the continued justification of the almost absolute right to own weapons that were inconceivable in the 18th century requires a linguistic diagram to contradict the simple meaning of the words and the historically specific intent.

You're not making sense. The diagram I have posted is for the language of that time.

https://i.snag.gy/idM0SY.jpg


All you're really doing at this point is changing the topic in a desperate search for something you can be right about.

[Chris]

I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.

None of that makes any sense.

The Constitution needs to be followed as it was written or else the very foundation of the government you love so much will be undermined.

[The Xl]

The government barely honors the other amendments, they certainly aren't going to honor the 10th

[Dr. Who]

You're not making sense. The diagram I have posted is for the language of that time.

https://i.snag.gy/idM0SY.jpg


All you're really doing at this point is changing the topic in a desperate search for something you can be right about.

Yup, there's the diagram because the plain reading of the words doesn't come to the desired conclusion.

[Safety]

Yup, there's the diagram because the plain reading of the words doesn't come to the desired conclusion.

Just be lucky it wasn’t a PragerU video.

[alexa]

Just be lucky it wasn’t a PragerU video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcnFxnXniY

[zachroidott]

Mathemes!

[Cletus]

Yup, there's the diagram because the plain reading of the words doesn't come to the desired conclusion.

Of course the "plain reading of the words" comes to the desired conclusion... except to people who can't read.

What do you think the plain reading of the words makes the Second mean?

[Max Rockatansky]

The Constitution is very specific about what the federal government is allowed to do. In the case of education, the federal government has no Constitutional role to play. In the case of self-defense, the Second Amendment is a continuation.
One day you should learn about the difference between enumerated and unenumerated. :)

That point aside, the Preamble clearly states that two reasons for all the states to come together is to provide for the common defense and provide for the general welfare. Basic education is important to both. "If little Johnny has 3 magazines of 30 rounds each and empties one magazine killing invading Socialists, how many rounds does little Johnny have left?"

It is important to our nation's security that it's citizenry be healthy, educated and working. Obviously there are limits and that limit is the consent of the states. It's fine with me for the Feds to coordinate a national education system, but that system must be managed by reps from the states, not political appointees of whatever dipshit is in Federal office.

[Peter1469]

Sure, that's why the continued justification of the almost absolute right to own weapons that were inconceivable in the 18th century requires a linguistic diagram to contradict the simple meaning of the words and the historically specific intent.

The 2nd Amendment allowed the common light infantry kit of the day. That is a timeless standard.

[Peter1469]

I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.
That is how the federal government seized more power than they rightfully have.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is how the federal government seized more power than they rightfully have.
That was primarily done during a heated debate from 1861 to 1865.

[Peter1469]

Of course the "plain reading of the words" comes to the desired conclusion... except to people who can't read.

And / or don't know the history of guns in America.


What do you think the plain reading of the words makes the Second mean?

[Peter1469]

One day you should learn about the difference between enumerated and unenumerated. :)

That point aside, the Preamble clearly states that two reasons for all the states to come together is to provide for the common defense and provide for the general welfare. Basic education is important to both. "If little Johnny has 3 magazines of 30 rounds each and empties one magazine killing invading Socialists, how many rounds does little Johnny have left?"

It is important to our nation's security that it's citizenry be healthy, educated and working. Obviously there are limits and that limit is the consent of the states. It's fine with me for the Feds to coordinate a national education system, but that system must be managed by reps from the states, not political appointees of whatever dipshit is in Federal office.
That is a nonsensical reading of the Constitution. No serious historian would accept the notion that the States would have ratified the Constitution were the General Welfare Clause a grant of absolute federal government power. The General Welfare Clause contains the enumerated powers that States were ceding to the Federal Government.

[Peter1469]

That was primarily done during a heated debate from 1861 to 1865.

No it wasn't. The South saw its power being assaulted with laws blocking slavery to the new territories. They feared losing power in Congress as more and more free states sent Representatives and 2 Senators to Congress.

[donttread]

Based on false arguments and cloistered elites hiding their true intentions.

Sorry , I thought the post was about the 16th. the death warrant of the republic which is where some of the states probably violated their own Constitutions in order to give up money and power to the feds.

[Chris]

Yup, there's the diagram because the plain reading of the words doesn't come to the desired conclusion.

That diagram shows the plain reading.

It's not possible to diagram your twisted interpretation.

[Chris]

Of course the "plain reading of the words" comes to the desired conclusion... except to people who can't read.

What do you think the plain reading of the words makes the Second mean?


It's not that they can't read, it's desired outcomes that twist plain meanings.

[Cletus]

The 2nd Amendment allowed the common light infantry kit of the day. That is a timeless standard.

Spot on.

People who try to bring nukes and jet fighters into the the discussion are idiots and just need to be slapped and then immediately dismissed. That discussion was actually had during the debates when Madison made it clear that the Second would not cover things like artillery, which he referred to as "Naval Cannon". That was never the intent of the Framers and has no place in discussion of the Second today.

They wanted the citizenry to be a able to possess and be proficient in the use of the same class of arms as conventional infantry forces.

[Max Rockatansky]

Your posts are proof that a stupid populace is easily led and rapidly enslaved.
<insert picture of MAGA hat mob here>

Dude, you just defined Trump’s most ardent fans; “the poorly educated”.

[Max Rockatansky]

No it wasn't. The South saw its power being assaulted with laws blocking slavery to the new territories. They feared losing power in Congress as more and more free states sent Representatives and 2 Senators to Congress.

Agreed. What does that have to do with the result? Remember what noted historian Shelby Foote said about the result of the Civil War? We became an “is”.

[Captdon]

This statement is incoherent.

The Constitution granted many powers to the federal government and equally importantly, stated that if a power was not granted explicitly to the fedgov, then the fedgov could not exercise that power.

The Constitution did not grant to the fedgov aby authority over:

Education
Healthcare
Welfare
Retirement
And Drugs,
To name the five biggest tents of federal abuse.

It was a response and its perfectly clear to all except you. You have done no more than repeat what others have said.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is a nonsensical reading of the Constitution. No serious historian would accept the notion that the States would have ratified the Constitution were the General Welfare Clause a grant of absolute federal government power. The General Welfare Clause contains the enumerated powers that States were ceding to the Federal Government.
Excellent straw man argument, counselor. I never claimed nor intended that the Feds have absolute power. What do you think the phrase “Obviously there are limits and that limit is the consent of the states” meant in my post? Any clue? An inkling perhaps?

[Captdon]

Yes, it is your opinion but I'm asking you how it pertains to Jefferson's view of judicial power and it's potential for misuse. What was the purpose of bringing up the fact that Jefferson owned slaves?

He always does. He's a race-baiter. Jefferson was white and that's enough for Safety. Now comes the insult.

[MisterVeritis]

No it wasn't. The South saw its power being assaulted with laws blocking slavery to the new territories. They feared losing power in Congress as more and more free states sent Representatives and 2 Senators to Congress.
Civil wars always become more likely as one side sees its powers taken away by another side. In my opinion, this power shift is always the underlying reason no matter what the proximate cause is.

[Captdon]

I thought Trump said he loved the uneducated? Are you suggesting that he only likes a certain demographic of the uneducated?

I doubt he like you if that's what you mean. You're welcome.

[Captdon]

Talk about not addressing the point - if the members of the Continental Congress who were many of the same people involved in the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution believed that education was an important thing from a Federal perspective and the success of nations now tends to depend on their ability to provide the level of skill and education that investment demands, all of this grousing about Federal involvement in encouraging higher educational standards is really illogical.

Yet they forgot to say so? They said it before but not in the Constitution? That's irrational.

[Captdon]

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.

The Second Amendment is clear. I have the right to keep and bear arms. I think most of the restrictions we have now are Unconstitutional.Where's the opposite views?

[Cletus]

It's not that they can't read, it's desired outcomes that twist plain meanings.
Yeah, you are right. They know what it says. It just doesn't say what they want it to say, so they have to pervert and distort it to "interpret" it to mean what they wish it did.

[Captdon]

Sure, that's why the continued justification of the almost absolute right to own weapons that were inconceivable in the 18th century requires a linguistic diagram to contradict the simple meaning of the words and the historically specific intent.

We have the right to own any standard weapon. No tricks required.

[Captdon]

I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.

The majority of Americans don't know what is in the Constitution. If you don't like the way it is written, amend it.

[MisterVeritis]

It's funny that you all take opposite positions between the 2nd Amendment and the General Welfare clause. On the one hand, the 2nd means universal ownership of weapons because that is the legacy of the revolution and what people believed was meant by freedom when the Constitution was drafted but when it comes to the General Welfare clause, what people believed at the time is irrelevant. Only the strict wording of the text matters. Fine, then the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment should rule, regardless of the beliefs in the 18th century. Make up your minds, you can't have it both ways.
The Second Amendment's strict words mean the federal government will protect our right to life by defending the individual to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause in Article 1 Section 8 explains the major division of the enumerated powers below it.

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;
Had your interpretation been the right one we would not have a united States nor would there have been any reason to enumerate the powers.

[MisterVeritis]

I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.
I believe the opposite. We do not spend nearly enough time complying with the Constitution. I suspect the problems of education about the Constitution can be placed at the feet of an unconstitutional federal department of education. Its goal is to dumb down the citizens. Your statement shows it is successful.

[Chris]

I think far too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution that is on the one hand considered a historical and sacrosanct document because of its reactionary origins and on the other hand is highly anachronistic. The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care.

So much wrong with that.

"too much effort and time is devoted to trying to either comply with or avoid dealing with a Constitution" as an opinion is fine but avoiding it undermines the entire notion of nation and centralized government.

"considered a historical" makes no sense because it is in fact historical.

"sacrosanct document" makes no sense when it is secular and political and as such not regarding it as such, again, undermines the entire notion of nation and centralized government.

"reactionary origins" means what? Wanting to return to something? That's a misreading of conservatism as a desire to return. To maintain, sure, maintain what works, as opposed to willynilly pursuing intellectual imagination unconcerned with consequences.

"highly anachronistic" only to those who live in intellectual imagination and see it as standing in the path of anointed visions of a future.

"The majority of today's America neither identifies with its origins nor do they actually care." No, the majority don't care period, for conservative prudence or liberal fantasies. It works, leave it alone.

[Peter1469]

Excellent straw man argument, counselor. I never claimed nor intended that the Feds have absolute power. What do you think the phrase “Obviously there are limits and that limit is the consent of the states” meant in my post? Any clue? An inkling perhaps?

You quoted what you were searching for:

The General Welfare Clause contains the enumerated powers that States were ceding to the Federal Government.

[Max Rockatansky]

You quoted what you were searching for:

The General Welfare Clause contains the enumerated powers that States were ceding to the Federal Government.

Your naysaying aside, it appears we agree that the Constituition is a limitation on the Federal government.

Going back to the original complaints: the Feds can have a Department or Education and coordinate education of Americans with the consent of the States. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? If not, why not?

[Peter1469]

Your naysaying aside, it appears we agree that the Constituition is a limitation on the Federal government.

Going back to the original complaints: the Feds can have a Department or Education and coordinate education of Americans with the consent of the States. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? If not, why not?

No, do you understand what enumerated powers mean? The States have only ceded the authority listed in Art. 1 sec. 8.

If we want to add education to the federal power, either amend the constitution or call for an Article V convention.

[MisterVeritis]

No, do you understand what enumerated powers mean? The States have only ceded the authority listed in Art. 1 sec. 8.

If we want to add education to the federal power, either amend the constitution or call for an Article V convention.
An Article V convention of States amends the Constitution. The difference between the Congress proposing amendments and the state legislatures proposing amendments is a check on Federal tyranny. It is a shame we won't use it.

We can look forward to serfdom followed by war.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, do you understand what enumerated powers mean? The States have only ceded the authority listed in Art. 1 sec. 8.

If we want to add education to the federal power, either amend the constitution or call for an Article V convention.
Obviously you are choosing to see what you only want to see. No matter. If you want to believe the states can't come together on education issues and invite the Feds to help coordinate, then I won't try to change your mind.

[Peter1469]

Obviously you are choosing to see what you only want to see. No matter. If you want to believe the states can't come together on education issues and invite the Feds to help coordinate, then I won't try to change your mind.
Right. I do not believe in the concept of the "living" constitution. If we want a change follow the procedures outlined in the document.

[Max Rockatansky]

Right. I do not believe in the concept of the "living" constitution. If we want a change follow the procedures outlined in the document.
Common ground. Agreed.

[MisterVeritis]

Can the states invite the Federal government to do an unconstitutional act? I think not Constitutionally. But who cares? The Federal government does mostly unconstitutional things. The Department of Education is clearly unconstitutional. And yet there it is.

[CaveDog]

As far as the tenth or any amendments in the bill of rights are concerned, the entire bill of rights was a sales pitch for ratification and has to be taken in that context. You generally get the best understanding by looking at the reservations people had about the Constitution and then examining how the bill of rights addressed them. Some feared that the very act of enumerating certain rights would lead to people regarding those as exclusively the only rights protected. The 10th addressed that. The 2nd also is a good (and widely misunderstood) example. There were fears that the powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 would allow the federal government to establish a standing army and just allow the militias to wither on the vine. The use of the term "Well regulated" in the archaic sense of "Well maintained" becomes obvious. If you substitute "maintained" for "regulated" the militia clause was clearly an assurance that the militias would not be neglected. I've also read the notes around the militia act of 1792 and it's notable that a proposal for the federal government to issue infantry arms to the militia was shelved citing that the people would not tolerate it for fear that if the government issued their personal arms then government could also take them away. That speaks volumes about the general attitudes of the times. Considering that the framers envisioned universal militia service, the right of the people and the right of the militia to keep and bear arms would have been one and the same. One also has to bear in mind that they were aware of "select" militia acts in English history when only certain groups loyal to those in power would be allowed to serve in the militia. The rest were disarmed. The latter operative part addressed fears that the militia/people or segments thereof might not only be neglected but outright disarmed. In a broader sense, the 2nd addressed trepidation over whether the Federal government might try to establish a monopoly on force over the states/people or some part of them.