Did the founding fathers intend _____________?

[dstebbins]

Thats's all well and good - and as a bonus, competely correct.

But:
Where are the amendments that give the Fed Gvmnt the power to create legislation dealing with education, retirement, health care, food stamps, etc?

There are none?

So, the Founders, those people that inteded the fed Gvmnt to have limited and narrowly specified powers, would be OK with these things, even though there's no power for the fed Gvmnt to create them?

How do you figure?

The necessary and proper clause provides for that, because, if you read the first enumerated power, you will find "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Welfare programs and education all apply under general welfare.

Besides, let's pretend that there is no power in the Constitution to do these things. Keep in mind that they intended the Supreme Court to be able to stretch the Constitution through their interpretation of the laws. Keep in mind they were alive during the case of Maybury vs. Madison. If they didn't like the power of Judicial review, they would have abolished it via constitutional amendment before kicking the bucket.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The necessary and proper clause provides for that, because, if you read the first enumerated power, you will find "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Welfare programs and education all apply under general welfare.

Wrongo.
If you were correct, then there would be 2 clauses in section 8 -- the first and the last. That there are 16 other clauses, specifying what was meant by "common defende" and "general welfare" indicates your argument is unsound.

Fact is, the first clause gives the power to tax. It gives no power to create legislation other than that to tax -- the powers to create legislation regarding the common defense and the "general welfare" follow in clauses 2-17.

Besides, let's pretend that there is no power in the Constitution to do these things.

There's no need to pretend. "Education" "Health Care" and "Retirement" are words fouind nowhere in the Constitution.

Keep in mind that they intended the Supreme Court to be able to stretch the Constitution through their interpretation of the laws.

Odd. That's not stated anywhere in the Constitution either.

Keep in mind they were alive during the case of Maybury vs. Madison. If they didn't like the power of Judicial review, they would have abolished it via constitutional amendment before kicking the bucket.

OK... so how does that show that the federal Government was goiven the power in the Constution to legislate anything regarding education, health care, retirement, etc?

 

[dstebbins]

There's no need to pretend. "Education" "Health Care" and "Retirement" are words fouind nowhere in the Constitution.

neither is an Air Force. So I guess an Air Force is unconstitutional. So why hasn't it been abolished? Common defense. Likewise, general welfare provides for the broad, comprehensive subject of general welfare.

Odd. That's not stated anywhere in the Constitution either.


OK... so how does that show that the federal Government was goiven the power in the Constution to legislate anything regarding education, health care, retirement, etc?

If you had considered the two quotes together, you would see what I'm talking about. It may not be listed in the Constitution, but if the Founding Fathers dissaproved of it, they would have passed a constitutional amendment banning judicial review, but they didn't. Obviously they think judicial review is constitutional even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, the Founding Fathers gave the Supreme Court the final say in what the Constitution is. John Marshall said it best: "The federal government must obey the Constitution, and the Constitution is whatever we say it is."- History of the Federal Government, History Channel.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court allows it, it has the force of law. Education, health care, and retirement are as good as explicitly mentioned simply because of recent judicial reviews, which the Founding Fathers approved.

So I guess a way to phrase it is that the Founding Fathers preserved their intentions in the Supreme Court.:mrgreen:

 

[M14 Shooter]

neither is an Air Force. So I guess an Air Force is unconstitutional. So why hasn't it been abolished? Common defense.

You're right - its not in there, and thereforte it not Constitutional. That it hasnt been forced back into the army (like it was until 1947) doesnt mean it IS constitutional.

Likewise, general welfare provides for the broad, comprehensive subject of general welfare.

The Founders didnt write "broad comprehensive powers" - they wrote narrow, specific powers -- and as noted Article 1 Sec 8:1 doest give congress the power to create anything but taxes.

If you had considered the two quotes together, you would see what I'm talking about.

I see what you're talking about. You're wrong.

If you were correct, then there would be 2 clauses in section 8 -- the first and the last. That there are 16 other clauses, specifying what was meant by "common defense" and "general welfare" indicates your argument is unsound -- unless, of course, you can explain why those other 16 clauses are there when the first and last suffice.

It may not be listed in the Constitution, but if the Founding Fathers dissaproved of it, they would have passed a constitutional amendment banning judicial review, but they didn't.

No...
Because unless the power was given by the Constitution, the power doesnt exist. If you arent given the power, there's no reason to specifically ban the power.

Obviously they think judicial review is constitutional even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Thats "obvuous", because...?

Therefore, the Founding Fathers gave the Supreme Court the final say in what the Constitution is. John Marshall said it best: "The federal government must obey the Constitution, and the Constitution is whatever we say it is."- History of the Federal Government, History Channel.

Thats post-marbury, as as such, meaningless.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court allows it, it has the force of law. Education, health care, and retirement are as good as explicitly mentioned simply because of recent judicial reviews, which the Founding Fathers approved.

That doesnt in any way mean that its a power granted by the Constitution.
All it means is that a court says its there. A court cannot add words to the Constitution.

So I guess a way to phrase it is that the Founding Fathers preserved their intentions in the Supreme Court.:mrgreen:

LOL
So, the Founders wtote a constitution with a specific, limited set of powers for the Fed Gvmnt, and then intentionally left it to the court to expand thise powers past what they wrote, completely negating the need to amend the Constitution?
:rofl

 

[mike49]

History of Social Security

 

[RightinNYC]

Texturalists wut wut

 

[dstebbins]

You're right - its not in there, and thereforte it not Constitutional. That it hasnt been forced back into the army (like it was until 1947) doesnt mean it IS constitutional.


The Founders didnt write "broad comprehensive powers" - they wrote narrow, specific powers -- and as noted Article 1 Sec 8:1 doest give congress the power to create anything but taxes.


I see what you're talking about. You're wrong.

If you were correct, then there would be 2 clauses in section 8 -- the first and the last. That there are 16 other clauses, specifying what was meant by "common defense" and "general welfare" indicates your argument is unsound -- unless, of course, you can explain why those other 16 clauses are there when the first and last suffice.


No...
Because unless the power was given by the Constitution, the power doesnt exist. If you arent given the power, there's no reason to specifically ban the power.


Thats "obvuous", because...?


Thats post-marbury, as as such, meaningless.


That doesnt in any way mean that its a power granted by the Constitution.
All it means is that a court says its there. A court cannot add words to the Constitution.


LOL
So, the Founders wtote a constitution with a specific, limited set of powers for the Fed Gvmnt, and then intentionally left it to the court to expand thise powers past what they wrote, completely negating the need to amend the Constitution?
:rofl

You know, just because it's not found in the Constitution only goes to support my original argument: That the Constitution if vague. If it's not because of the necessary and proper clause, then something about the Constitution is vague, or else education, air force, and everything else you state, would have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Bottom line.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know, just because it's not found in the Constitution only goes to support my original argument

Everything is found in the constitution - see amendment X

everything else you state, would have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Bottom line.

You;re ,akinhg 2 unsupportable assumptions that negate your argument
1- That the issue in question has come before the SCOTUS
2- That the SCOTUS wansn't interested in expanding the power of the Fed Gvmnt, regarless what the Constitution says.

You -assume- that SCOTUS decisiosn are sound. That many have been reversed indicates that the SCOTUS can and does make improper decisons.

 

[dstebbins]

Everything is found in the constitution - see amendment X

Amendment X reads "All powers not granted the federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states or to the people thereof." That only means that, for a power to be reserved to the states, it must be neither granted the federal government or denied to the states. It says nothing about what would happen if a power is granted the federal government but not specifically denied to the states. This is echoed in taxes. Taxes are not denied the states, but they are granted the federal government, thus not applying under Amendment X. Any power that is not denied the states in Article I, Section 10 are implied to the states. Likewise, all powers not denied the federal government under Article 1, Section 9 are implied to the federal government.

 

[mike49]

Amendment X reads "All powers not granted the federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states or to the people thereof." That only means that, for a power to be reserved to the states, it must be neither granted the federal government or denied to the states. It says nothing about what would happen if a power is granted the federal government but not specifically denied to the states. This is echoed in taxes. Taxes are not denied the states, but they are granted the federal government, thus not applying under Amendment X. Any power that is not denied the states in Article I, Section 10 are implied to the states. Likewise, all powers not denied the federal government under Article 1, Section 9 are implied to the federal government.

United States v Darby

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the [p124] States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§ 1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324, 325; McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 405, 406; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697, 705; Lottery Case, supra; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra, 344-345; Everard's Breweries v. Day, supra, 558; United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733; see United States v. The Brigantine William, 28 Fed.Cas. No. 16,700, p. 622. Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion, they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited. See also Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 330-331; Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 502, 516.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Amendment X reads "All powers not granted the federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states or to the people thereof." That only means that, for a power to be reserved to the states, it must be neither granted the federal government or denied to the states

Thats correct.

It also means that if the Founders didn't give the power to the fed Gvmnt,, they intended the states to deal with it. Thats how the Constitution covers "everything" - if something comes up that the fed Gvmnt doesnt have the power to deal with, it falls to the states.

Things like education, health care, retirement, etc.

It says nothing about what would happen if a power is granted the federal government but not specifically denied to the states. This is echoed in taxes. Taxes are not denied the states, but they are granted the federal government, thus not applying under Amendment X.

Concurrent powers -- so what?
States receive their power to tax through their own constitutions.

Any power that is not denied the states in Article I, Section 10 are implied to the states. Likewise, all powers not denied the federal government under Article 1, Section 9 are implied to the federal government.

Wrong.
The fed Gvmnt only has the powers it was specifically given, There are no powers granted to the gmnt implied through ommission.

 

[ChristopherHall]

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.

The founders would have allowed individual states to determine if they wished to empliment a welfare system.

I know this much...the Founding Fathers would have stood against the Federal Income Tax. They ran the government on tariffs, imports, duties, and excise taxes.

 

[Donkey1499]

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.

The founding fathers intended for us to be slave owners, but Lincoln had to screw that up. :smile: j/k