dstebbins said:I find a lot of these threads on this site. I haven't posted in one yet, but let me give you my two cents on each and every one of them.
The Founding Fathers intended to set up a system of government that would change over time on demand. That's why they made the Constitution so vague. Sure they would approve of and dissaprove of different laws, but they would allow all of them to pass without bitching about it like some people because they intended for the government to flex. If they wanted to preserve their intentions, they would have made the Constitution as rigid as a rock.
Conclusion: The Founding Fathers would be behind the current government no matter what, even if it was repealing one of the first amendments. I believe this because they would approve it as long as it had to support to happen. The founding fathers were wise men, and they understood the corruption that their government would one day face. That's why they made the Constitution so difficult to amend and yet not impossible.
Okay, I'm done ranting.
If the "current government" were a product of amendment, rather than unsupportable court rulings and outright usurpation of power, you'd be right.Conclusion: The Founding Fathers would be behind the current government no matter what, even if it was repealing one of the first amendments.
I agree that most of the enumerated powers are not vague, but take, for example, the necessary and proper clause. "Congress shall have the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper." Basically, this means that the government can do anything it wants that is not in conflict with the rest of the Constitution, as long as the times demand it.mike49 said:The constitution is not vague. It's enumerated powers are not vague.
dstebbins said:I agree that most of the enumerated powers are not vague, but take, for example, the necessary and proper clause. "Congress shall have the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper." Basically, this means that the government can do anything it wants that is not in conflict with the rest of the Constitution, as long as the times demand it.
Example: Welfare. I agree that the Founding Fathers object to lazy people sitting on their ass doing no work and waiting for a welfare check, but I doubt they object to the government helping out the poor. Yet the government did not institute the Welfare program until the Great Depression, because it was not necessary until then. The government is using its flexibility, and that's what the Founding Fathers set up.
dude, I don't understand all that gobbledegook!mike49 said:The necessary and proper clause is not a license to do what government deems necessary and proper outside of it's enumerated powers. Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland stated this:
''let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''
"Even without the aid of the general clause in the constitution, empowering congress to pass all necessary and proper laws for carrying its powers into execution, the grant of powers itself necessarily implies the grant of all usual and suitable means for the execution of the powers granted."
"Congress is authorized to pass all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry into execution the powers conferred on it. These words, 'necessary and proper,' in such an instrument, are probably to be considered as synonymous."
"Necessarily, powers must here intend such powers as are suitable and fitted to the object; such as are best and most useful in relation to the end proposed. If this be not so, and if congress could use no means but such as were absolutely indispensable to the existence of a granted power, the government would hardly exist; at least, it would be wholly inadequate to the purposes of its formation."
mike49 said:dstebbins,
It depends on what you mean exactly by "change".
The necessary and proper clause does enable change within the context of the enumerated powers. So, something like the Commerce clause can have a lot of running room in it.
The Federal Government is not the cure all. In and of itself it does not have to deal with everything. The States and the democratic institutions within a State are more able to change. This is really the original intention.
If you would ask the Federal Government they would say they are within the constitution. No problem, they'd say.
Think about this: The Founding Fathers could have never imagined a world in which cars, computers, and televisions were the commonplace, yet they created a constitution that has adapted to just such a world. Congress was immediantly given the power to outlaw nudity on free channels like NBC without a Constitutional amendment that said "Congress shall have the power to regulate electronic media" even though the first amendment garentees right to press and speech. Why? Because they can, and the Founding Fathers put the wheels in motion for them to do that in 1887.mike49 said:dstebbins,
It depends on what you mean exactly by "change".
dstebbins said:I agree that most of the enumerated powers are not vague, but take, for example, the necessary and proper clause. "Congress shall have the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper." Basically, this means that the government can do anything it wants that is not in conflict with the rest of the Constitution, as long as the times demand it.
did you read this?M14 Shooter said:Wrong.
You didnt cite the REST of the elastic clause -- "....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"
The Elastic clause doesnt grant any additional powers to Congress, it simply sllows it to pass laws to executing the powers granted elsewhere in the Constitution.
dstebbins said:Think about this: The Founding Fathers could have never imagined a world in which cars, computers, and televisions were the commonplace, yet they created a constitution that has adapted to just such a world. Congress was immediantly given the power to outlaw nudity on free channels like NBC without a Constitutional amendment that said "Congress shall have the power to regulate electronic media" even though the first amendment garentees right to press and speech. Why? Because they can, and the Founding Fathers put the wheels in motion for them to do that in 1887.
Another way of the government stretching its powers is automobiles. If the powers of the government were strictly defined, then the Energy Policy Act should be unconstitutional, should it not? After all, the Constitution never mentions the government regulating the energy market. It also never mentions a cabinet, executive departments, or a Bank of the United States. Shouldn't all those things be unconstitutional under your interpretation?
Think about that for a moment.
dstebbins said:Think about this: The Founding Fathers could have never imagined a world in which cars, computers, and televisions were the commonplace, yet they created a constitution that has adapted to just such a world. Congress was immediantly given the power to outlaw nudity on free channels like NBC without a Constitutional amendment that said "Congress shall have the power to regulate electronic media" even though the first amendment garentees right to press and speech. Why? Because they can, and the Founding Fathers put the wheels in motion for them to do that in 1887.
Another way of the government stretching its powers is automobiles. If the powers of the government were strictly defined, then the Energy Policy Act should be unconstitutional, should it not? After all, the Constitution never mentions the government regulating the energy market. It also never mentions a cabinet, executive departments, or a Bank of the United States. Shouldn't all those things be unconstitutional under your interpretation?
Think about that for a moment.
TV is not commerce. It is the media, as is radio and internet. "Commerce" deals with the buying and selling of goods and services, not what people say in public, which is really what you're doing when you're on TV.mike49 said:The constitution should be interpreted expansively. This was a view held by Chief Justice Marshall.
Automobiles, TV, Internet, etc.., all within the commerce clause. Even the Energy Policy could be justified in some manner. Most things the government does is within it's power. The things you mention were never intended to need a Constitutional Amendment. Government moving into new areas created by the citizens, TV, etc., those things merely fall into already enumerated powers.
Where?The different executive departments are covered.
I do not know of saying anything relating to how Congress can interpret the Constitution. Did I say that? If I did, my apologies. What I said was that the Constitution was flexible; I never said by whom.The court itself, who are alone the final Judge on the constitution, are the ones who have possibly stretched power. For good or bad.
dstebbins said:TV is not commerce. It is the media, as is radio and internet. "Commerce" deals with the buying and selling of goods and services, not what people say in public, which is really what you're doing when you're on TV.
I'm aware of that. However, when was the last time we heard of the government regulating commercials? I'm talking about the actual stuff we want to watch on TV, aka the TV shows. That's not commerce. That's media, because it deals with the distribution of information, not the actual buying and selling of goods. While they are intertwined because of the way you have to advertise to get your stuff sold, they are different, just like the curculitory and resperatory systems of the human body are intertwined but different.Engimo said:Really? Are you saying that people do not pay to advertize on TV? TV stations don't make huge amounts of profit? The regulation of broadcast TV falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause, as TV broadcasts cross state lines and are a form of business. I don't like a lot of the things that the FCC does, but an unregulated spectrum would be chaos.
dstebbins said:did you read this?
okay, in that case, I guess I can assume that every book relating to the US government I have EVER read lied to me, hmmmmmmmmm?M14 Shooter said:The Elastic Clause, as mentioned, does NOT grant the fed Gvmnt the power to do anything it was not already given the power to do.
dstebbins said:okay, in that case, I guess I can assume that every book relating to the US government I have EVER read lied to me, hmmmmmmmmm?
It's not just any of them. EVERY SINGLE ONE I have ever read stated that.M14 Shooter said:If any of them actually did say that, then yes.
Why is there a ninth amendment? All the rights of the people are explicitly spelled out in the first eight, so why worry about putting in a ninth? Simple, the writers of the Bill of Rights knew they had left some out that may need to be implimented later on, so they wrote ninth amendment in order to protect unwritten rights.Your argument negates any need for the 17 clauses preceeding the Elastic Clause. if you;re right -- why are there 17 other powers specified?
Then you need to go to better schools or read better books.dstebbins said:It's not just any of them. EVERY SINGLE ONE I have ever read stated that.
This doesnt apply to the powers granted toi the federal Government -- see Amendment X. The founders gave the fed Gvmnt the powers they wanted it to have and reserved the rest for the states and/or the people. If the power to do X isnt spelled out oin the Constitution, then the power belings to the states.Why is there a ninth amendment? All the rights of the people are explicitly spelled out in the first eight, so why worry about putting in a ninth? Simple, the writers of the Bill of Rights knew they had left some out that may need to be implimented later on, so they wrote ninth amendment in order to protect unwritten rights.
Um...Likewise, the necessary and proper clause, according to the books I have read, is a safeguard so that Congress will not have to amend the Constitution every friggin time a new need arises.
I guess you STILL havent read the ENTIRE clause.The first seventeen were explicit powers. The necessary and proper clause covers all implied powers,
dstebbins said:It's not just any of them. EVERY SINGLE ONE I have ever read stated that.
Why is there a ninth amendment? All the rights of the people are explicitly spelled out in the first eight, so why worry about putting in a ninth? Simple, the writers of the Bill of Rights knew they had left some out that may need to be implimented later on, so they wrote ninth amendment in order to protect unwritten rights.
Likewise, the necessary and proper clause, according to the books I have read, is a safeguard so that Congress will not have to amend the Constitution every friggin time a new need arises. The first seventeen were explicit powers. The necessary and proper clause covers all implied powers, just the same way the 9th amendment covers implied rights, so if you're going to interpret the Constitution strictly, then the ninth amendment is meaningless, which means bye-bye right to privacy, property, and right against harrassment.
Thats's all well and good - and as a bonus, competely correct.dstebbins said:Let's entertain this for a minute. Let's pretend that the powers of the government ARE strictly defined. That still doesn't prove my original argument uncredible. The Founding Fathers still intended for the government to change with the times because they made a PROVISION in the Constitution to change the government with the times. If the Founding Fathers didn't want the government to change, they wouldn't have made the Constitution amendable!
And I ask again: Where are the amendments?The Founding Fathers would have supported anything we do, even if it goes against their moral values, if it's an amendment simply because it had the supermajority support to pass.
You're kidding, right?Now you can't make a comeback from THAT, now can you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?