Another question for progressives

[iustitia]

Are there any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional? If so, which ones and why?


(Respectfully, not that anyone cares, I'm only looking for 'liberal' or 'progressive' responses, not conservative or libertarian ones.)

[Dr. Who]

Since the 16th amendment was never ratified by a majority of States, the IRS is unconstitutional, notwithstanding lame arguments that it has been made legitimate by precedence under common law.

[Howey]

Are there any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional? If so, which ones and why?


(Respectfully, not that anyone cares, I'm only looking for 'liberal' or 'progressive' responses, not conservative or libertarian ones.)

Since they were all established by Congress and overseen by Congress via the APA, I would say no.

Which ones do you think are unconstitutional?

[Peter1469]

Check out Article 1, sec. 8, US Constitution. Where does the Department of Education fit into the enumerated powers?


Since they were all established by Congress and overseen by Congress via the APA, I would say no.

Which ones do you think are unconstitutional?

[Cigar]

They're all Good :grin:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9e/9e31fa0d1b9c49d0686c2044b35a3e69493a3038697738b0a7 139923c0ccb61d.jpg

[Peter1469]

They're all Good :grin:



People who don't understand the Constitution don't get to vote in this poll.

[del]

People who don't understand the Constitution don't get to vote in this poll.

you misspelled agree with me

[Peter1469]

you misspelled agree with me


Ha. No I didn't. :smiley:

Why ask someone who is clueless about the Constitution which federal agencies are unconstitutional?

That would be like me asking Codename what makeup looks best on a drag queen. Not that I would even think to ask that.....

[Captain Obvious]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) - this was part of my point in my response to you in the Satanist thread (which went unresponded by you, btw). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution, I know the basics so I'm not going to argue one way or the other but some folks who's understanding of it whom I respect suggest that certain agencies are unconstitutional.

Let's say they have an argument (do you agree?). If the Constitution doesn't provide for these agencies and yet they still exist then what good is that document?

Might as well wipe your ass with it.

[Peter1469]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) - this was part of my point in my response to you in the Satanist thread (which went unresponded by you, btw). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution, I know the basics so I'm not going to argue one way or the other but some folks who's understanding of it whom I respect suggest that certain agencies are unconstitutional.

Let's say they have an argument (do you agree?). If the Constitution doesn't provide for these agencies and yet they still exist then what good is that document?

Might as well wipe your ass with it.

We slowly drifted away from the Constitution over the course of our history. The major break was in 1937.

[Alyosha]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) - this was part of my point in my response to you in the Satanist thread (which went unresponded by you, btw). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution, I know the basics so I'm not going to argue one way or the other but some folks who's understanding of it whom I respect suggest that certain agencies are unconstitutional.

Let's say they have an argument (do you agree?). If the Constitution doesn't provide for these agencies and yet they still exist then what good is that document?

Might as well wipe your ass with it.

Oh, I agree. The Constitution is meaningless today.

[Captain Obvious]

We slowly drifted away from the Constitution over the course of our history. The major break was in 1937.

That drift is gaining momentum from what I can tell.

Again I ask - what good is that document nowadays?

[Peter1469]

That drift is gaining momentum from what I can tell.

Again I ask - what good is that document nowadays?

A lighthouse in the storm.

[Captain Obvious]

A lighthouse in the storm.

It's vague and outdated enough to be easily manipulated which is what's happening IMO.

[Peter1469]

It's vague and outdated enough to be easily manipulated which is what's happening IMO.

It is neither vague nor outdated. It is a document that outlines a government system where the federal government has limited and enumerated powers. And all other authority is left to the states and the people.

The only thing that makes people think it is vague is when people decide the federal government needs more power and are unwilling to follow the Constitutionally accepted ways to amend the document: (1) amendment, or (2) convention.

It is one of the simplest constitutions in the world.

[ace's n 8's]

It is neither vague nor outdated. It is a document that outlines a government system where the federal government has limited and enumerated powers. And all other authority is left to the states and the people.

The only thing that makes people think it is vague is when people decide the federal government needs more power and are unwilling to follow the Constitutionally accepted ways to amend the document: (1) amendment, or (2) convention.

It is one of the simplest constitutions in the world.And I will solidly blame congress for not holding the country to the Constitution.

Somewhere in this thread I seen that the comment of this country vearing away from the Constitution was around '37, well that is not the facts, it was the election of WOODROW ''FUCK HEAD'' WILSON.

Essentially the first progressive POTUS, Woodrow was an evil tyrant.

[Peter1469]

1937 was me.

And it is a good point to pick. It is when SCOTUS started to fold to Congress on using the Commerce Clause to usurp power.
And I will solidly blame congress for not holding the country to the Constitution.

Somewhere in this thread I seen that the comment of this country vearing away from the Constitution was around '37, well that is not the facts, it was the election of WOODROW ''FUCK HEAD'' WILSON.

Essentially the first progressive POTUS, Woodrow was an evil tyrant.

[Green Arrow]

Off the top of my head...Department of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.

Oh, wait, that's all of them...except State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Justice.

[Green Arrow]

And I will solidly blame congress for not holding the country to the Constitution.

Somewhere in this thread I seen that the comment of this country vearing away from the Constitution was around '37, well that is not the facts, it was the election of WOODROW ''FUCK HEAD'' WILSON.

Essentially the first progressive POTUS, Woodrow was an evil tyrant.

The constitution started to collapse with the presidency of John Adams. It just didn't kick into high gear until the 1900s.

[texan]

Yeah this place has been a complete failure.

[Peter1469]

Yeah this place has been a complete failure.

If the measure is following the Constitution, then yes, it is a failure.

[Howey]

Check out Article 1, sec. 8, US Constitution. Where does the Department of Education fit into the enumerated powers?

That's an argument often cited but seeing as how that pesky Commerce Clause is around, it appears to be constitutional.


People who don't understand the Constitution don't get to vote in this poll.

Of course you believe the Constitution to be finite and literal in the Libertarian vein.

Fortunately, the SCOTUS, disagrees. If the Founding fathers had the foresight to create such a magnificent document, couldn't you give them the credit for realizing times change and thus it was to be considered a living document?

[hanger4]

If the Founding fathers had the foresight to create such a magnificent document, couldn't you give them the credit for realizing times change and thus it was to be considered a living document?

Of course times change which is why the Founding Fathers wrote Article V of the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[Peter1469]

The Commerce Clause doesn't have the expansive reach that most think. J. Roberts reminded us that in the Obamacare case- and he got the libs on the Court to agree. I hope SCOTUS continues to follow that. That will help save our nation.

Expand on your last statement. The Constitution is not finite? What do you mean? It doesn't limit the power of the federal government?

The Constitution is not a living document in the sense that you intend. See Hanger4's post above. He explained it.


That's an argument often cited but seeing as how that pesky Commerce Clause is around, it appears to be constitutional.



Of course you believe the Constitution to be finite and literal in the Libertarian vein.

Fortunately, the SCOTUS, disagrees. If the Founding fathers had the foresight to create such a magnificent document, couldn't you give them the credit for realizing times change and thus it was to be considered a living document?

[Green Arrow]

That's an argument often cited but seeing as how that pesky Commerce Clause is around, it appears to be constitutional.

How does the commerce clause make the DoE constitutional? Education isn't commerce.

[Peter1469]

The commerce clause is not a power grab. It was intended to be a way for the federal government to prevent the states from creating trade wars within the US.

[kilgram]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) - this was part of my point in my response to you in the Satanist thread (which went unresponded by you, btw). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution, I know the basics so I'm not going to argue one way or the other but some folks who's understanding of it whom I respect suggest that certain agencies are unconstitutional.

Let's say they have an argument (do you agree?). If the Constitution doesn't provide for these agencies and yet they still exist then what good is that document?

Might as well wipe your ass with it.

But, Constitution bans the existence of that agencies? If I understand well, the constitution provides the basic rules that the state will work under.

For example if the constitution says the government must provide the basic service, the department of education would fit there or can fit there.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

But, Constitution bans the existence of that agencies? If I understand well, the constitution provides the basic rules that the state will work under.

For example if the constitution says the government must provide the basic service, the department of education would fit there or can fit there.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

Incorrect. The Constitution gives the federal government limited and enumerated power. All else is left to the states and the people.

[kilgram]

Incorrect. The Constitution gives the federal government limited and enumerated power. All else is left to the states and the people.

The constitution says explicitly what is in hands of federal government and what no?

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

The constitution says explicitly what is in hands of federal government and what no?

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

See Article 1, sec. 8.

Yes, our founders created a federal government with only limited powers.

[kilgram]

See Article 1, sec. 8.

Yes, our founders created a federal government with only limited powers.
From that article:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause)[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#cite _note-58)and general Welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

General welfare: That can give to a lot of interpretation and it can give power to the Federal government to have an education, healthcare department, and many others.

I don't see it so limited. It is very unrestricted.

[Peter1469]

Read the rest of the clause. The list below that is there for a reason. It is pretty clear.

And look at it this way- anyone who knows about the early history of the US would acknowledge that the Founders were not creating a federal government with all power.



From that article:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause)[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#cite _note-58)and general Welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

General welfare: That can give to a lot of interpretation and it can give power to the Federal government to have an education, healthcare department, and many others.

I don't see it so limited. It is very unrestricted.

[Howey]

Of course times change which is why the Founding Fathers wrote Article V of the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Once again, you're denying the foresight of the founding fathers by being a strict Constitutionalist. If Art V was intended to be a do-all for our government, there wouldn't be a need for any of the other branches of government and the SCOTUS.

As it is, the Commerce Clause was further defined to expand governmental powers in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin and other rulings.

Until those rulings are negated, we will continue to see a broader definition of government powers.


The Commerce Clause doesn't have the expansive reach that most think. J. Roberts reminded us that in the Obamacare case- and he got the libs on the Court to agree. I hope SCOTUS continues to follow that. That will help save our nation.

Expand on your last statement. The Constitution is not finite? What do you mean? It doesn't limit the power of the federal government?

The Constitution is not a living document in the sense that you intend. See Hanger4's post above. He explained it.

From Rehnquist (pdf):

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language
and left to succeeding generations the task of applying
that language to the unceasingly changing environment in
which they would live. Those who framed, adopted, and ratified
the Civil War amendments7 to the Constitution likewise
used what have been aptly described as “majestic generalities”8
in composing the fourteenth amendment. Merely because a
particular activity may not have existed when the Constitution
was adopted, or because the framers could not have conceived
of a particular method of transacting affairs, cannot mean that
general language in the Constitution may not be applied to
such a course of conduct. Where the framers of the Constitution
have used general language, they have given latitude to
those who would later interpret the instrument to make that
language applicable to cases that the framers might not have
foreseen.


We can discuss all day long whether the Constitution is a living document or not. In the end, only our hairdressers know for sure...

[Chris]

Are there any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional? If so, which ones and why?


(Respectfully, not that anyone cares, I'm only looking for 'liberal' or 'progressive' responses, not conservative or libertarian ones.)



My guess is you knew the answer from progressives was going to be none and now you've basically demonstrated it.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by iustitia http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=866676#post866676)
Are there any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional? If so, which ones and why?


(Respectfully, not that anyone cares, I'm only looking for 'liberal' or 'progressive' responses, not conservative or libertarian ones.)

[/QUOTE]

My guess is you knew the answer from progressives was going to be none and now you've basically demonstrated it.

One might suggest the Department of Education.

The founders did not create such a department. Matter of fact, education was hit and miss until 1845.

Carter founded it. Has it been tested in courts yet?

The United States Department of Education (ED or DoED), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet)-level department of theUnited States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States). Recreated by the Department of Education Organization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Education_Organization_Act) (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter) on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 4, 1980.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#cite_note-2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

[Peter1469]

I acknowledged that SCOTUS went off track in 1937 when it rolled over and allowed Commerce Clause to mean anything Congress wanted it to. A few cases rethought that starting in 1995 and most famously the Obamacare case.

I am not sure what you mean about Article 5- but it was meant to be the two ways to change the Constitution. A whim wasn't meant to be a third way.

And most men don't have hairdressers. I don't need one to be sure about what the Constitution says. :smiley:

Once again, you're denying the foresight of the founding fathers by being a strict Constitutionalist. If Art V was intended to be a do-all for our government, there wouldn't be a need for any of the other branches of government and the SCOTUS.

As it is, the Commerce Clause was further defined to expand governmental powers in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin and other rulings.

Until those rulings are negated, we will continue to see a broader definition of government powers.



From Rehnquist (pdf):

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



We can discuss all day long whether the Constitution is a living document or not. In the end, only our hairdressers know for sure...

[Bob]

From that article:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause)[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#cite _note-58)and general Welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

General welfare: That can give to a lot of interpretation and it can give power to the Federal government to have an education, healthcare department, and many others.

I don't see it so limited. It is very unrestricted.

Some thought it also included income taxes. But to make those possible, a brand new amendment was passed in 1916. The US Supreme court struck down income taxes till 1916.

The General welfare part still confuses democrats to this very day.

Even on education, it was as late as 1989 that a law was passed to include it in the law. I am trying to discover if that has been taken up in the SCOTUS.

[Mini Me]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) - this was part of my point in my response to you in the Satanist thread (which went unresponded by you, btw). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution, I know the basics so I'm not going to argue one way or the other but some folks who's understanding of it whom I respect suggest that certain agencies are unconstitutional.

Let's say they have an argument (do you agree?). If the Constitution doesn't provide for these agencies and yet they still exist then what good is that document?

Might as well wipe your ass with it.

Shrub Bush said; "The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper"

[Mini Me]

It's vague and outdated enough to be easily manipulated which is what's happening IMO.

GASP! But, but, the Tea Party has gone all in on it, and bet the farm!

Do you mean to tell me they are full of shit?:wtf20:

[Howey]

I acknowledged that SCOTUS went off track in 1937 when it rolled over and allowed Commerce Clause to mean anything Congress wanted it to. A few cases rethought that starting in 1995 and most famously the Obamacare case.

I am not sure what you mean about Article 5- but it was meant to be the two ways to change the Constitution. A whim wasn't meant to be a third way.

And most men don't have hairdressers. I don't need one to be sure about what the Constitution says. :smiley:

Congress creates these cabinet level agencies under the direction of the Constitution in order to carry out the laws of the nation.

Quote:

Although Article I, Section 1, of the federal Constitution plainly states that "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," the "necessary-and-proper" clause, in the eighth section of the same article, states that Congress shall have power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers … in any Department or Officer thereof." With this language, many have argued that the Framers of the Constitution expected, indeed encouraged, the creation of powerful administrative agencies. This argument prevailed, and courts therefore have allowed the U.S. Congress—and other legislative bodies—to make laws that delegate limited lawmaking authority to administrative agencies. The substance of an administrative agency's powers must be intelligible, and a system of controls must be in place to limit those powers, but courts almost always find that administrative agencies meet these requirements.

Administrative agency rules and regulations often have the force of law against individuals. This tendency has led many critics to charge that the creation of agencies circumvents the constitutional directive that laws are to be created by elected officials. According to these critics, administrative agencies constitute an unconstitutional, bureaucratic fourth branch of government with powers that exceed those of the three recognized branches (the legislative, executive, and judiciary). In response, supporters of administrative agencies note that agencies are created and overseen by elected officials or the president. Agencies are created by an enabling statute, which is a state or federal law that gives birth to the agency and outlines the procedures for the agency's rule making. Furthermore, agencies include the public in their rule-making processes. Thus, by proxy, agencies are the will of the electorate.

[Howey]

Oops. Source:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Administrative+Agency

I'm sure everyone will agree that is an unbiased source.

[Mini Me]

My guess is you knew the answer from progressives was going to be none and now you've basically demonstrated it.

Yep, he set the trap with the GOTCHA,

But it failed! The progs responded that it is a living document subject to changes. Jeez, what more could you ask for?

The Constitution is not chiseled on stone tablets to never change just to suit the "drown government in a bathtub' crowd and let the oligarchs run wild.

Such was not the intent of the Founding Fathers, or maybe they could not forsee such a thing happening today. Eh? Perhaps?

[Howey]

The commerce clause is not a power grab. It was intended to be a way for the federal government to prevent the states from creating trade wars within the US.


How does the commerce clause make the DoE constitutional? Education isn't commerce.

The word "Commerce" was rarely used in colonial days, leaving interpretation of the Commerce Clause to the SCOTUS, which has historically interpreted it in a broad manner.

[Chris]

Yep, he set the trap with the GOTCHA,

But it failed! The progs responded that it is a living document subject to changes. Jeez, what more could you ask for?

The Constitution is not chiseled on stone tablets to never change just to suit the "drown government in a bathtub' crowd and let the oligarchs run wild.

Such was not the intent of the Founding Fathers, or maybe they could not forsee such a thing happening today. Eh? Perhaps?


The progs responded exactly as I would expect, nothing is unconstitutional to them.

If, as you argue, the Constitution is ephemeral, then you have just undermined the entire legal basis for government.

[Howey]

Yep, he set the trap with the GOTCHA,

But it failed! The progs responded that it is a living document subject to changes. Jeez, what more could you ask for?

The Constitution is not chiseled on stone tablets to never change just to suit the "drown government in a bathtub' crowd and let the oligarchs run wild.

Such was not the intent of the Founding Fathers, or maybe they could not forsee such a thing happening today. Eh? Perhaps?

While I appreciate the fervor in which the strict Constitutionalists and Libertarians speak eloquently in their desire to limit our government; the simple fact is that the Founding Fathers knew better.

In other words, they were what we can call the Founding Progressives.

My recommendation for them, if they wish to create a nation with severely limited executive powers, would be to find a nice uninhabited island to start over. :)

Therein forever blows my chances at VIP glory. **sniff**

[Howey]

The progs responded exactly as I would expect, nothing is unconstitutional to them.

If, as you argue, the Constitution is ephemeral, then you have just undermined the entire legal basis for government.

Please feel free to cite where anyone stated "nothing is unconstitutional ".

This is the problem with the OP. Rather than intelligently discuss the issue, the author disrespected our intelligence with his lame attempt at "Gotchaism".

You are equally to blame.

[Chris]

The word "Commerce" was rarely used in colonial days, leaving interpretation of the Commerce Clause to the SCOTUS, which has historically interpreted it in a broad manner.

Oh? How do you know the word was rarely used? It appears in dictionaries of the time:


Commerce is defined in the 1785 edition of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language as "1. Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick."53 In contrast, "manufacture" is defined as "1. The practice of making any piece of workmanship. 2. Any thing made by art."54 "Agriculture" is defined as "the art of cultivating the ground; tillage; husbandry, as distinct from pasturage." n55 If Johnson is accurate, commerce referred predominantly to exchange or trade as distinct from the agricultural or manufacturing production of those things that are subsequently traded. As Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence56, Johnson's definition of "commerce" is borne out by other dictionaries of the time. It is also the usage most closely associated with the drafting and adoption of the Constitution.

It was used quite often in convention debates:


In Madison's notes for the Constitutional Convention, the term "commerce" appears thirty-four times in the speeches of the delegates59. Eight of these are unambiguous references to commerce with foreign nations which can only consist of trade. In every other instance, the terms "trade" or "exchange" could be substituted for the term "commerce" with the apparent meaning of the statement preserved. In no instance is the term "commerce" clearly used to refer to "any gainful activity" or anything broader than trade. One congressional power proposed by Madison, but not ultimately adopted, suggests that the delegates shared the limited meaning of "commerce" described in Johnson's dictionary. Madison proposed to grant Congress the power "to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures,"60 strongly suggesting that the members understood the term "commerce" to mean trade or exchange, distinct from the productive processes that made the things to be traded.

It was used in the Federalist Papers, ratification conventions.

See for yourself: THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm)

[Chris]

Please feel free to cite where anyone stated "nothing is unconstitutional ".

This is the problem with your smarmy OP. Rather than intelligently discuss the issue, you disrespected our intelligence with your lame attempt at "Gotchaism".


Have any of you progressives come out and pointed to "any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional?" Well?


Hey, howey, who's words are these: "Since they were all established by Congress and overseen by Congress via the APA, I would say no."

[Howey]

Oh? How do you know the word was rarely used? It appears in dictionaries of the time:



It was used quite often in convention debates:



It was used in the Federalist Papers, ratification conventions.

See for yourself: THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm)

Sorry. I don't take the word of your Libertarian author as gospel.

My source for the statement is far superior and impartial.
http://www.lawnix.com/

[Howey]

Have any of you progressives come out and pointed to "any federal agencies and/or departments that you believe are unconstitutional?" Well?


Hey, howey, who's words are these: "Since they were all established by Congress and overseen by Congress via the APA, I would say no."

Changing the topic, huh?

[Bob]

While I appreciate the fervor in which the strict Constitutionalists and Libertarians speak eloquently in their desire to limit our government; the simple fact is that the Founding Fathers knew better.

In other words, they were what we can call the Founding Progressives.

My recommendation for them, if they wish to create a nation with severely limited executive powers, would be to find a nice uninhabited island to start over. :)

Therein forever blows my chances at VIP glory. **sniff**

Then you argue our founders were first, high criminals, war making in nature, and sold out England.

[Chris]

Sorry. I don't take the word of your Libertarian author as gospel.

My source for the statement is far superior and impartial.
http://www.lawnix.com/


Samuel Johnson was a libertarian when he published his 1985 Dictionary of the English Language?


Your link says nothing about usage of 'commerce' in colonial times.

[Chris]

Please feel free to cite where anyone stated "nothing is unconstitutional ".....


...Hey, howey, who's words are these: "Since they were all established by Congress and overseen by Congress via the APA, I would say no."


Changing the topic, huh?

Busted?

[Peter1469]

Shrub Bush said; "The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper"

Snopes crapped on that. It was a lie.

[Peter1469]

The word "Commerce" was rarely used in colonial days, leaving interpretation of the Commerce Clause to the SCOTUS, which has historically interpreted it in a broad manner.

That doesn't make any sense. There is plenty of contemporaneous documents to know what the Commerce Clause means.

[Howey]

Samuel Johnson was a libertarian when he published his 1985 Dictionary of the English Language?


Your link says nothing about usage of 'commerce' in colonial times.

Your link is written by Randy E. Barnett, a Libertarian.

Here's Johnsons definition :

Cómmerce.*n.s.*[commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on the last syllable.] Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.

Places of publick resort being thus provided, our repair thither is especially for mutual conference, and, as it were,*commerceto be had between God and us.*Hooker, b. v. s. 17.


Sounds pretty all encompassing, doesn’t it?

And...

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/commerce-clause.html

[Peter1469]

That doesn't make any sense. There is plenty of contemporaneous documents to know what the Commerce Clause means. It was always intended to be a shield and not a sword.

[Howey]

Snopes crapped on that. It was a lie.

Correct.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

[Howey]

Busted?

The phrase "nothing is unconstitutional" is nowhere in your quote.

You're pretty bad at this "Gotcha" stuff, aintcha?

[Howey]

It was always intended to be a shield and not a sword.

Source?

[Mini Me]

The progs responded exactly as I would expect, nothing is unconstitutional to them.

If, as you argue, the Constitution is ephemeral, then you have just undermined the entire legal basis for government.

No, we have English Common Law, etc. And court precedent, which codifies into law.

Nice try, Chris, the anarchist!

[Chris]

No, we have English Common Law, etc. And court precedent, which codifies into law.

Nice try, Chris, the anarchist!

I'd go with bottom up common law.

[Chris]

The phrase "nothing is unconstitutional" is nowhere in your quote.

You're pretty bad at this "Gotcha" stuff, aintcha?

Because I don't play your games, yes, I'm bad. You're pretty good at it though.

You never answered, was Samuael Johnson a libertarian? Madison and other conventioners? They used commerce a lot.

[Mini Me]

Snopes crapped on that. It was a lie.

Snopes is biased, founded and run by Rethuglicans!

Here is from Rense.com a conservative site!

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document." Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine * in the end * if something is legal or right. Every federal official * including the President * who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Peter1469]

Source?

In general see this. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause)

[iustitia]

My guess is you knew the answer from progressives was going to be none and now you've basically demonstrated it.

While I did accurately predict the responses I'd receive I actually hoped for the contrary. While I despise progressivism among other statist doctrines, I try to understand them as much as possible. However, as you've seen demonstrated-


This is the problem with the OP. Rather than intelligently discuss the issue, the author disrespected our intelligence with his lame attempt at "Gotchaism".

You are equally to blame.How is there supposed to be an intelligent discussion with someone that attacks the OP out of paranoia? When asked a simple, straightforward question, the likes of Howey think they're being tricked. You'll notice I didn't respond after the OP, which is because I wasn't looking to fight people I disagreed with but rather to see how many different responses there would be among a certain camp. I'm a researcher in spirit. The more responses I get the easier it becomes for me to notice trends in logic and argumentation. That's why I ask questions even if I think I know the answer. To learn.

[Mini Me]

ioustitia, you are forgiven!

Your reply seems pretty sincere, and you have cred here on this forum as a stand up guy!
You put some honest thought into your threads, which is admirable, even if we don't agree.

"Cheers, and beers, to chase away the fear!"

[Bob]

While I did accurately predict the responses I'd receive I actually hoped for the contrary. While I despise progressivism among other statist doctrines, I try to understand them as much as possible. However, as you've seen demonstrated-

How is there supposed to be an intelligent discussion with someone that attacks the OP out of paranoia? When asked a simple, straightforward question, the likes of Howey think they're being tricked. You'll notice I didn't respond after the OP, which is because I wasn't looking to fight people I disagreed with but rather to see how many different responses there would be among a certain camp. I'm a researcher in spirit. The more responses I get the easier it becomes for me to notice trends in logic and argumentation. That's why I ask questions even if I think I know the answer. To learn.

Do not expect any Democrat to speak honestly or use logic. I am sorry but that is not how it works.

I leave out buzz words like left winger, etc. for that reason.

[Bob]

Snopes is biased, founded and run by Rethuglicans!

Here is from Rense.com a conservative site!

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document." Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine * in the end * if something is legal or right. Every federal official * including the President * who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Not true. I used to read this crap from Democrats when Bush was in office.

It is pretty easy to debunk their claims.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

Q: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper"?
A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
FULL QUESTION
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
FULL ANSWER
The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.
We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.
Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:


Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:
"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."
I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.
Thompson elaborated on what led him to retract his story (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/37544) in an item posted on his website Jan. 1, 2011. He also noted that an earlier article, in which he had referred to Bush as a "madman," has been removed from the site entirely.

[Howey]

Samuel Johnson was a libertarian when he published his 1985 Dictionary of the English Language?


Your link says nothing about usage of 'commerce' in colonial times.

Let me be the first to say that I'm SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED! !! the your Samuel Johnson, born in 1709, lived until 1985!!!!

[Howey]

While I did accurately predict the responses I'd receive I actually hoped for the contrary. While I despise progressivism among other statist doctrines, I try to understand them as much as possible. However, as you've seen demonstrated-

How is there supposed to be an intelligent discussion with someone that attacks the OP out of paranoia? When asked a simple, straightforward question, the likes of Howey think they're being tricked. You'll notice I didn't respond after the OP, which is because I wasn't looking to fight people I disagreed with but rather to see how many different responses there would be among a certain camp. I'm a researcher in spirit. The more responses I get the easier it becomes for me to notice trends in logic and argumentation. That's why I ask questions even if I think I know the answer. To learn.

Glad I educated you.

[iustitia]

Glad I educated you.

You did no such thing. The only thing you've done is demonstrate that you're a fascist clown on par with Mac-7.

[Green Arrow]

Gentlemen, let's save the insults for the really terrible people in this world, hm?

[Dr. Who]

You did no such thing. The only thing you've done is demonstrate that you're a fascist clown on par with Mac-7.
No name calling iustitia. Please refer to the rules.

[domer76]

People who don't understand the Constitution don't get to vote in this poll.

I always chuckle at all the Constitutional "experts" out there when the (supposedly) top 9 in the country often split 5-4 on those very issues.

[Chris]

I always chuckle at all the Constitutional "experts" out there when the (supposedly) top 9 in the country often split 5-4 on those very issues.

They're more and more political.

So are we.

[nic34]

Well, glad that's over.

[Peter1469]

I always chuckle at all the Constitutional "experts" out there when the (supposedly) top 9 in the country often split 5-4 on those very issues.

And usually (not always) for the same reasons....

[domer76]

They're more and more political.

So are we.

No doubt about that!