User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Canadian Division of Powers

  1. #21
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jillian View Post
    you're ignoring the commerce clause, the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause.
    No I am not. First the General Welfare Clause is the entire list of enumerated powers along with the preamble to Art. 1, sec. 8. Second the supremacy clause basically says that if the states try to legislate in the enumerated powers, they are wrong, because the states ceded their authority to the feds in those areas. Lastly, the Commerce Clause is nowhere near as broad as it began to be interpreted as seen in the Obamacare case.

  2. #22
    Points: 47,456, Level: 53
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 1,394
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    jillian's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    53535
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    12,432
    Points
    47,456
    Level
    53
    Thanks Given
    2,229
    Thanked 2,058x in 1,737 Posts
    Mentioned
    421 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    No I am not. First the General Welfare Clause is the entire list of enumerated powers along with the preamble to Art. 1, sec. 8. Second the supremacy clause basically says that if the states try to legislate in the enumerated powers, they are wrong, because the states ceded their authority to the feds in those areas. Lastly, the Commerce Clause is nowhere near as broad as it began to be interpreted as seen in the Obamacare case.
    that isn't how it's been construed. that's how the right wants it to be construed. general welfare means general welfare. that issue has been decided and is done and dusted.

    as for the ACA i disagree wholeheartedly. roberts court was the first to diminish the bredth of the commerce clause... well, ever. these issues were fought during the civil war. and again after the new deal. it's time for the states' rights types to accept that we don't live under the articles of confederation and they lost the civil war.

    i understand you don't like that and that you'd prefer a more limited federal government. but that isn't our system. it isn't what the constitution established. and it certainly isn't possible to allow any state to limit constitutional rights because they don't like the rulings of the federal bench and legislation that came down from congress.

  3. #23
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    It just seems really vague. Easy to interpret differently.
    Vagueness hasn't been the center of debate, at least not overtly. The big divide is between originalists (which really has two subdivisions) and "living document" types. Originalists basically believe that the Founders meant something with the words they wrote. The living document crowd says that times change and the meaning of the text must keep up. So they tend to agree with significant changes in what a particular clause means with no legal process. While Originalists believe that the documents in really mostly about timeless principles of good governance and if something must be changed, use one of the two procedures that were written into the document.

  4. #24
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Roberts court was not the first to pull back on the powers of the commerce clause- I mentioned the case before.

    Do you think the existing states would have ratified the Constitution had they thought they were ceding most of their sovereign powers to the federal government? There never would have been a United States in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by jillian View Post
    that isn't how it's been construed. that's how the right wants it to be construed. general welfare means general welfare. that issue has been decided and is done and dusted.

    as for the ACA i disagree wholeheartedly. roberts court was the first to diminish the bredth of the commerce clause... well, ever. these issues were fought during the civil war. and again after the new deal. it's time for the states' rights types to accept that we don't live under the articles of confederation and they lost the civil war.

    i understand you don't like that and that you'd prefer a more limited federal government. but that isn't our system. it isn't what the constitution established. and it certainly isn't possible to allow any state to limit constitutional rights because they don't like the rulings of the federal bench and legislation that came down from congress.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts