Defend your government Conservatives

[SheWolf]

What is the purpose of government, and why support governance at all?

So what can the government be trusted to do?

What is the government efficient at governing?

 

[TurtleDude]

What is the purpose of government, and why support governance at all?

So what can the government be trusted to do?

What is the government efficient at governing?

read the constitution as originally written

that is a good start for an answer to your questions

1) to provide for the national defense

2) to regulate commerce among the states and with other nations

3) to set up a system of federal courts

4) to establish postal roads

redistributing income etc isn't one of those things that is part of that. nor is national healtcare, social security etc.

 

[Wiseone]

read the constitution as originally written

that is a good start for an answer to your questions

1) to provide for the national defense

2) to regulate commerce among the states and with other nations

3) to set up a system of federal courts

4) to establish postal roads

redistributing income etc isn't one of those things that is part of that. nor is national healtcare, social security etc.

Per your interpretation

 

[Deuce]

read the constitution as originally written

that is a good start for an answer to your questions

1) to provide for the national defense

2) to regulate commerce among the states and with other nations

3) to set up a system of federal courts

4) to establish postal roads

redistributing income etc isn't one of those things that is part of that. nor is national healtcare, social security etc.

As originally written or do you want to keep the stuff about letting women vote and black people go free?

 

[TurtleDude]

Per your interpretation

feel free to find the parts of the constitution that authorize social security, income redistribution etc

you cannot-it was a creative expansion of the commerce clause that was conjured up by FDR's administration that started it

more than 100 years after the Constitution was created, these delegations of power to the federal government suddenly were revealed to FDR the wise

 

[TurtleDude]

As originally written or do you want to keep the stuff about letting women vote and black people go free?

lets stick with the clauses that properly delegated to the federal government the items I mentioned were not properly federal matters.

 

[Deuce]

feel free to find the parts of the constitution that authorize social security, income redistribution etc

you cannot-it was a creative expansion of the commerce clause that was conjured up by FDR's administration that started it

more than 100 years after the Constitution was created, these delegations of power to the federal government suddenly were revealed to FDR the wise

No, they were interpreted differently in a different time by different people.

 

[Wiseone]

feel free to find the parts of the constitution that authorize social security, income redistribution etc

you cannot-it was a creative expansion of the commerce clause that was conjured up by FDR's administration that started it

more than 100 years after the Constitution was created, these delegations of power to the federal government suddenly were revealed to FDR the wise

Well since we agree that the Constitution gives ultimate authority of interpretation to the Supreme Court, until something is deemed unconstitutional it is enforced and treated as if it were Constitutional. Therefore just like segregation was constitutional, so is healthcare and so are taxes, ie 'wealth re-distribution' until its found to be unconstitutional.

Everything else outside of the courts is just opinion that doesn't matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well since we agree that the Constitution gives ultimate authority of interpretation to the Supreme Court, until something is deemed unconstitutional it is enforced and treated as if it were Constitutional. Therefore just like segregation was constitutional, so is healthcare and so are taxes, ie 'wealth re-distribution' until its found to be unconstitutional.

Everything else outside of the courts is just opinion that doesn't matter.

the purpose of this thread is not that

if we can only argue based on current supreme court interpretations this board would be rather dead.

but the fact remains, even leftwing liberal scholars have a hard time attempting to justify why years of precedent were overturned in the period between 1937 and 1939 other than FDR threatening to Pack the supreme court.

so maybe some of you libs that believe social security etc is truly constitutional based on the intent of the document as opposed to a bunch of intimidated justices were cowed into saying, be my guest

 

[Wiseone]

the purpose of this thread is not that

if we can only argue based on current supreme court interpretations this board would be rather dead.

but the fact remains, even leftwing liberal scholars have a hard time attempting to justify why years of precedent were overturned in the period between 1937 and 1939 other than FDR threatening to Pack the supreme court.

so maybe some of you libs that believe social security etc is truly constitutional based on the intent of the document as opposed to a bunch of intimidated justices were cowed into saying, be my guest

Of course the purpose of this board is to voice individual opinion, I was just stating mine. That being since the whole mess can be intrepreted eight ways to Sunday the real meaning is found in SCOTUS precedent and rulings.

Which 'leftwing liberal scholars' have you actually read any work and have any names, or is this just something you heard is true and/or just made it up?

And as for precedent being overturned while I agree that it shouldnt be done lightly, not every time it has been done has been for the worse.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course the purpose of this board is to voice individual opinion, I was just stating mine. That being since the whole mess can be intrepreted eight ways to Sunday the real meaning is found in SCOTUS precedent and rulings.

Which 'leftwing liberal scholars' have you actually read any work and have any names, or is this just something you heard is true and/or just made it up?

And as for precedent being overturned while I agree that it shouldnt be done lightly, not every time it has been done has been for the worse.

I have read tons on the issue. albeit much of it back in the days when I was attending law or grad school and had more time than when I started actually trying cases-most of which were more mundane than major constitutional issues. but most of the defenses of that FDR expansion and the complete disregard for almost 150 years of tradition and precedent (culminating with cases such as Schecter Poultry) was sort of the "tough times justified ignoring precedent and the constitution". the old the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

 

[Wiseone]

I have read tons on the issue. albeit much of it back in the days when I was attending law or grad school and had more time than when I started actually trying cases-most of which were more mundane than major constitutional issues. but most of the defenses of that FDR expansion and the complete disregard for almost 150 years of tradition and precedent (culminating with cases such as Schecter Poultry) was sort of the "tough times justified ignoring precedent and the constitution". the old the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

While I disagree with the idea of court packing, are you really trying to pass off a case about sick chickens as "culminating"