- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,184
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I prefer: agenda serving
or willfully dishonest.
It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.Then why include that explanation if it creates ambiguity in the document (and it does)?
I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.If it was truly intended that the listed powers are the only ones that congress has then shouldn't clarity of that point have been more important than a meaningless explanation?
How can it be argued otherwise?No, they didn't. It can be argued that the way that section is presented implies that those are the only powers held by congress, but that is not explicitly stated.
The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.It is no more unsupportable than the argument that the drafters of the constitution would have intended those 16 powers to be the only ones held by congress and not stated so explicitly.
So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.Who knows Perhaps he did argue against it during the constitutional convention and was overruled. Perhaps that's the reason for the ambiguity; the members of the constitutional convention couldn't agree on how it should be, so they left it open to the interpretation of future generations.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.Your assumption that there is no ambiguity in the constitution is either hopelessly naive or simply ignorant.
I addressed this when you first mentioned it.You have repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the Articles of Confederation included a clause that made the enumerated powers all the powers given. This clause was removed for some reason from the Constitution.
No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.No, there are more than one way to interpret it. It is ambiguous. One SCOTUS may decide one way and a different SCOTUS may decide a different way. You are trying to have previous decisions overturned.
Not that you have been able to show.It is.
If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.But they do. It is the whole strict constructionist vs loose constructionist litmus test. It is personal opinion.
I addressed this when you first mentioned it.
The articles of Confederation are irrelevant, especially any given clause taken in space. They did not work for a miltitude of reasons; citing the deletion of one clause from the AoC to the Constitution doesnt mean anything regarding the intent of the Constitution.
No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.
Not that you have been able to show.
If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.
Justices are supposed to decide cases based on the mertis of the case and the low, not their personal opinons and political goals.
So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.
Given that you responsed to two of my quotes, I am not sure what this refers to.You have not shown that it is not an appeal to authority.
That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.Not at all. They do base it on the merits of the case but different justices see different merits.
That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.
It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.
I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.
Note that this is very similar to Hamilton's defense of the elastic clause, in Fed#33
How can it be argued otherwise?
This gets back to the question as to if you're right, why did they include the other 16 clauses?
The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.
So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.
FURTHER, Hamilton himself states, in the discussion regarding the bill of rights, that:
This very much illustrates an ackowledgement that the enumerated powers do create a firm limit to the powers of the federal government in that there are no powers given to the government by the Constitution that might abridge the rights of the people. CLEARLY, the power to do "anything that might fall under 'general welfare'" has the potential to abridge any number of rights, and so, if his position is genuine, he holds that said power is not there.
I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.
reefedjib said:I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.
So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.
They did.
When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.
I am saying is that it's removal added ambiguity that forces both of our arguments to be appeals to authority or rather that it is up to SCOTUS to interpret. Thus we get the strict vs loose constructionist views and a fight for supremacy in the Court ensues.
Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.
Then I should have been more clear. Your position that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard is either hopelessly naive, simply ignorant, or willfully dishonest.
Great argument.
Too bad the Constitution is only one sentence and semi-colons to divide the clauses in Art1Sect8, isn't it? It wrecks your whole argument.
Those semi-colons link the beginning of the sentence to the ending, which is
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and 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 phrase "foregoing powers" gives you people no weasel room, nor does "all other Powers vested by this Constitution".
It says, quite plainly, that those listed powers are not only THE powers Congress has, but ONLY the powers Congress has.
And, to ice the cake, the Tenth Amendment makes that perfectly plain that if it's not specifically listed as a power reserved to the federal government, the federal government DOES NOT have that power.
Period.
Fini.
End of Play.
Listen to the fat lady singing.
Then I'll make it perfectly clear.
Your desire to invent ambiguity where none exists is merely an expression of your desire to impose illegal social programs on a formerly free people.
If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.
Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.
If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.
Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.
I thought it was the clause that was ambiguous.You are basing that statement on an ambiguous interpretation of the General Welfare Clause and case law is against you.
I thought it was the clause that was ambiguous.
Show that it is. What 'authority' am I basing my argument on?You have not shown that your argument is not an appeal to authority.
Same reasons the liberals have one of the opposite.Then why the conservative litmus test of strict constructionist?
No more so than your adherece to the idea that there -is- ambiguity.And your assumption that it does not has been addressed as well, it's either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.
I see you did not comment on the purpose of the clarification. Do you agree or disagree?I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.
Thank you.You're right. I'm not exactly sure why the different stances from him. Where did you pull the quote from him from? I'd be interested in seeing whether reading more of it would explain the differences of opinion
The 'ambiguity' is based on Hamilton's comments.Hamilton's inconsistencies aside (assuming they exist, and the quote was not taken out of context), the ambiguity is very much there...
Again:Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
Interesting that you did not keep going.Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #5
...the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper
In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States." .... It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper.
The Federalist #41Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter
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?