Enumerated Powers

[Don]

http://youtu.be/W1-eBz8hyoE

[donttread]

At least one of the bastards finally came out and said what they all think!
Are we to believe that the founders were somehow so clueless as to agonize over writing out 18 enumerated powers and then sticking in a commerce clause designed to nullify them all?

[Chris]

She's right for the right reasons. He's right for the wrong reasons.

Awarding people invented entitlement rights, those rights that declare society has a duty to individuals to provide for them, does make us slaves, whether it's to provide services as she says or to pay taxes to fund the entitlement.

The federal government can do anything it wants though the basis is not "how it affects other people." That's the basis for limiting powers, even rights as responsibilities to do no harm by force or fraud. The basis for this government power is that, force and fraud.

The founders were vary wary of this happening. They wrote the BoR to try and prevent it. They probably shouldn't have written a Constitution that needed a BoR.

[Howey]

http://youtu.be/W1-eBz8hyoE

Pete Spark's a tea party hero now?

Really????

Do you know who he is?

[Chris]

Pete Spark's a tea party hero now?

Really????

Do you know who he is?


Tea Party hero, a big government liberal progressive?

[Mr. Right]

Howey, didja watch the video? Look at it and get back to us. 3:09 forward is really telling.

[Don]

That's why I have Hooey on ignore.

[Don]

She's right for the right reasons. He's right for the wrong reasons.

Awarding people invented entitlement rights, those rights that declare society has a duty to individuals to provide for them, does make us slaves, whether it's to provide services as she says or to pay taxes to fund the entitlement.

The federal government can do anything it wants though the basis is not "how it affects other people." That's the basis for limiting powers, even rights as responsibilities to do no harm by force or fraud. The basis for this government power is that, force and fraud.

The founders were vary wary of this happening. They wrote the BoR to try and prevent it. They probably shouldn't have written a Constitution that needed a BoR.

Chris, I think we are lucky the constitution turned out as good as it was. When they had the convention in 1787 I think they were going to "tweek" the articles of federation but it turned out to be something totally different. Just the debates and final solution on how we would choose a president and how long that president could serve gives you an idea about the dangers of letting today's establishment types have a constitutional convention even if they claim to committing to confine themselves to a particular agenda.


What the 1787 Convention Almost Created (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/18784-what-the-1787-convention-almost-created)
by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Most Americans would be amazed at the government that was almost established at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. In no area is that more evident than in the debates over the mode of election of the president of the United States.

On Thursday, July 26, 1787, after over a week of fierce debates, the 55 (give or take) state representatives present that day came to a consensus on how the executive would be elected and for how long he would serve. The basic points of the agreement were:

• He would be chosen by the national legislature

• He would serve a term of seven years

• He would be ineligible for reelection

• He would be subject to impeachment and removal from office

• He would appoint all officers except judges

• He would have power to carry out all laws passed by the legislature

The delegates wanted to hammer out a system whereby the executive would be independent of the legislature, but not so independent as to create an embryonic despot. They wanted the president to have sufficient power to carry out his constitutional duties without sacrificing his accountability to the people of the states.

A basic rehearsal of how they came to the compromise described above is helpful in recognizing not only how they arrived at the agreement that day 227 years ago, but how little the office eventually ratified resembles that plan.

First, on June 1 and 2, the method of election set out in the Virginia Plan was adopted with only two states — Pennsylvania and Maryland — opposing. James Wilson in particular spoke out against such a scheme, preferring, he declared, an “election by the people.”

Such an arrangement was uncommon, however, as the executives of only three states — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York — were elected popularly. Wilson, then, proposed that the president be chosen by electors chosen by the people.

One of the more insightful remarks made during the debates on the mode of presidential election was by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Gerry said that he believed that empowering the national legislature to elect the president would create constant intrigues for executive favor. Furthermore, he feared that such a scheme would end up “stripping the states of their power.” He was no more fond of Wilson’s proposal either. Gerry considered the people at large to be “too little informed of personal characters” to be relied on to choose wise electors.

He added, some days later, during a heated debate on the subject, “The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the union and acting in concert to delude them in any appointment.”

Wilson’s proposal was defeated. The convention voted to set the term office at seven years and to deny any president reelection.

About a week later, Elbridge Gerry moved that the president be elected by the state governors. He warned that allowing the national legislature to elect the president would “give birth to both corruption between the executive and legislature previous to election and to partiality in the executive afterwards to the friends who promoted him.” Gerry fared about as well as Wilson, and his motion was defeated, as well.

Around July 24, the delegates returned to the question of reelection. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut spoke up, saying that the president should be reelected “if his conduct proved him worthy of it. And he will be more likely to render himself worthy of it if he be rewardable with it.”

This theory was antithetical to the principles of the recent War for Independence, however. Patriots were wary of turning reelection to office into a reward, fearing those disposed to tyranny would seek office for the purpose of gaining access to power.

The Articles of Confederation — the document that the delegates had ostensibly been called together to amend, not replace — forbade any representative from serving more than three years in a six-year period.

In 1782, a Committee of Congress (on which both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison served) reported:

The truth is, the security intended to the general liberty in the Confederation consists in the frequent election and in the rotation of the members of congress, by which there is a constant and effectual check upon them. This is the security which the people in every state enjoy against the usurpation of their internal government and it is the true source of security in a representative republic.

Back in Philly, Gouverneur Morris argued that if the president wasn’t eligible for reelection, the rotation would “produce instability of councils.”

George Mason of Virginia had an answer for that. In his record of the convention, James Madison writes of Mason’s speech:

Having for his primary object, for the pole-star of his political conduct, the preservation of the rights of the people, he held it as an essential point, as the very palladium of civil liberty, that the great officers of state and particularly the executive, should at fixed periods return to that mass from which they were at first taken, in order that they may feel and respect those rights and interests which are again to be personally valuable to them.

Later, during the Virginia ratifying convention, Mason would make a similar declaration, stating, “Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken where he must participate [in] their burdens.”

After a short statement by Benjamin Franklin, the convention adopted the resolution forbidding presidential reelection and setting seven years as the term of office.

As evident in the above narration, the term of office and mode of electing the president agreed to on July 26 was completely abandoned by the time the final draft was adopted on September 17.

The analogy to what could result from a modern constitutional convention is apt.

Although committing to confine itself to a particular agenda, the product could be a constitution that resembles the current one very little.

[domer76]

That's why I have Hooey on ignore.

Ignore is for pussies

[Don]

Not at all. It is a fairly good way to block out ignorant one liner troll posters who feel they just have to comment even if it has nothing at all to do with the topic. You just made the grade.

[Chris]

Chris, I think we are lucky the constitution turned out as good as it was. When they had the convention in 1787 I think they were going to "tweek" the articles of federation but it turned out to be something totally different. Just the debates and final solution on how we would choose a president and how long that president could serve gives you an idea about the dangers of letting today's establishment types have a constitutional convention even if they claim to committing to confine themselves to a particular agenda.


I would agree, the Constitution, as it was written, was good, but it sowed the seeds for expansion and intrusion of government into our lives ws today see.

[domer76]

Not at all. It is a fairly good way to block out ignorant one liner troll posters who feel they just have to comment even if it has nothing at all to do with the topic. You just made the grade.

Howey isn't one of those, little lady

[Don]

When humans are involved its probable that no document couldn't or wouldn't be misinterpreted or ignored if they had an agenda. We were and are lucky the constitution is as good as it is.

[Chris]

Human foibles and fallibility grow exponentially as government grows.

[The Sage of Main Street]

When humans are involved its probable that no document couldn't or wouldn't be misinterpreted or ignored if they had an agenda. We were and are lucky the constitution is as good as it is. The Constitution is an anti-democratic manifesto devised behind closed doors by lawyers for the 18th Century 1%. Those plutes would have been Tories except for the fact that they understood that England was planning on replacing the whole native colonial ruling class with the younger sons of the British aristocracy.

The fact that we first have to ask whether proposed legislation is Constitutional rather than only whether it is good for the country shows that having a Constitution is not good for the country. This obsolete overlord on the will of the majority is an obstruction to progress and led directly to the dictatorship of the Supreme Court.

[Howey]

Tea Party hero, a big government liberal progressive?


Howey, didja watch the video? Look at it and get back to us. 3:09 forward is really telling.

No, I didn't. I looked at the source. And considering it's from 2010, long before the SCOTUS decision, it's a moot point, isn't it?

As far as Stark? He's an idiot and was kicked out of office.

As far as enumerated powers? For the thousandth time, the founding fathers didn't want a limited government allowing free reign by the states and didn't intend for the Constitution to be literally interpreted, as has been shown in countless court decisions over the past one hundred and fifty years.

[Peter1469]

No, I didn't. I looked at the source. And considering it's from 2010, long before the SCOTUS decision, it's a moot point, isn't it?

As far as Stark? He's an idiot and was kicked out of office.

As far as enumerated powers? For the thousandth time, the founding fathers didn't want a limited government allowing free reign by the states and didn't intend for the Constitution to be literally interpreted, as has been shown in countless court decisions over the past one hundred and fifty years.

Federalism. Public schools don't teach the meaning any more.

The Federal government was 100% sovereign in the powers granted to it by the States. (See Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const, or the enumerated powers).

The States were 100% sovereign in the powers not granted to the federal government.

The 14th Amendment changed this some.

[Chris]

No, I didn't. I looked at the source. And considering it's from 2010, long before the SCOTUS decision, it's a moot point, isn't it?

As far as Stark? He's an idiot and was kicked out of office.

As far as enumerated powers? For the thousandth time, the founding fathers didn't want a limited government allowing free reign by the states and didn't intend for the Constitution to be literally interpreted, as has been shown in countless court decisions over the past one hundred and fifty years.



the founding fathers didn't want a limited government

Then why did they write a Constitution the body of which consists of a limited number of enumerated powers granted the federal government, and a Bill of Rights that further limited the powers of the federal government.

You make these statements but they do not align at all with the documentary evidence.


allowing free reign by the states

Agree, the states gave up those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

But Amendment X clearly reads "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."



(A) didn't intend for the Constitution to be literally interpreted, (B) as has been shown in countless court decisions over the past one hundred and fifty years.

(B) does not entail (A).

How is it to be interpreted according to you? Metaphorically?