The limits of the Commerce power? [W:85, 130]

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

So, you can't do it. I didn't think you could.

:roll: Everyone just watched me do it.

For the thousandth time, exactly whom do you think you're fooling here?

 

[American]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

:roll: Everyone just watched me do it.

For the thousandth time, exactly whom do you think you're fooling here?

He couldn't even answer my question. He isn't trying to fool anyone, he just scared to answer a question.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

He couldn't even answer my question. He isn't trying to fool anyone, he just scared to answer a question.

He posts with this bravado -- "so there, I won!" -- as though others might buy it. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

How is it that we have a public education system and less people understand the constitution now than when only the priveledged could go to school? Wait, nevermind, I know the answer for that, sorry.

Back to topic though. The founders invisioned a very simple governance that was a bottom to top structure, the local and state would handle that which it's people desired but fell within it's powers. The federal had very limited powers and only those which insured for a proper national stabilization which was to issue standard currency, raise and train an army, and engage in foreign treaties. The only time the federal was to engage further was if the states granted a new power to it via constitutional amendment OR if there was a state violating the constitution.

This means; If the states are not infringing on government powers, individual rights or civil liberties, and not inhibiting other states then the U.S. governmnet has no compelling interest and thus no power to intervene.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

:roll: Everyone just watched me do it.

For the thousandth time, exactly whom do you think you're fooling here?

When your quote is put into context, we get a different meaning.

I have gone through Federalist 45 and have included relative citations:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.
The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

Federalist 45 also says militia; not the right to keep and bear arms, and not The Army. Yet the Supreme Court decisions on the subject of the II Amendment do not reach back into Federalist 45 as a primary source for their decisions, they draw from the source document of The Constitution alone. So much the intent of the amendment.

Madison says that the state governments will work under the umbrella of the federal government. Madison notes that the regulation of commerce will be for international purposes, however, we find in the adopted constitution that the regulation of commerce applied to the several states as well. What we know about the federalist papers is that they were an argument for a federalized central government holding the power of Union over the states. The finished constitution was indeed different from the propositions in the papers and with the elastic clause and the open powers of regulation of commerce, the “limited government” that you attempt to argue is not the case at all. Moreover, I challenged you to find your argument from the source documents of the founding of this nation; those being The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which you have not done, because you cannot do it. Such language does not exist and I submit that this by intent rather than accident. You are also ignoring the powers of the Amendment process: there is no such limitation to those, and though ratified by the several states they are a federal application.

So, your limited government argument cannot hold water against the source documents, including Federalist 45.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

He couldn't even answer my question. He isn't trying to fool anyone, he just scared to answer a question.

Yu can't defend against a challenge by asking another question as a diversion; thereby attempeting to shift the burden of proof: that's a dodge. I challenged you to frame an argument using the source documents of the founding of this country adn you can't do it: neither can Harshaw. And BTW, I did answer his question as you can see.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

How is it that we have a public education system and less people understand the constitution now than when only the priveledged could go to school? Wait, nevermind, I know the answer for that, sorry.

Back to topic though. The founders invisioned a very simple governance that was a bottom to top structure, the local and state would handle that which it's people desired but fell within it's powers. The federal had very limited powers and only those which insured for a proper national stabilization which was to issue standard currency, raise and train an army, and engage in foreign treaties. The only time the federal was to engage further was if the states granted a new power to it via constitutional amendment OR if there was a state violating the constitution.

This means; If the states are not infringing on government powers, individual rights or civil liberties, and not inhibiting other states then the U.S. governmnet has no compelling interest and thus no power to intervene.

Your "limited powers" proposal is just an assertion; you have to show it from the source documents as passed for the founding of this country in order to state it as a fact, but it's not there. It would have been suicide for the federal government to so corral itself as such, hense the elastic clause. So your argument reamains an unsubstaniated assertion.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

He posts with this bravado -- "so there, I won!" -- as though others might buy it. Ain't gonna happen.

More ad-hominem.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

When your quote is put into context, we get a different meaning.

I have gone through Federalist 45 and have included relative citations:


Federalist 45 also says militia; not the right to keep and bear arms, and not The Army. Yet the Supreme Court decisions on the subject of the II Amendment do not reach back into Federalist 45 as a primary source for their decisions, they draw from the source document of The Constitution alone. So much the intent of the amendment.

Madison says that the state governments will work under the umbrella of the federal government. Madison notes that the regulation of commerce will be for international purposes, however, we find in the adopted constitution that the regulation of commerce applied to the several states as well. What we know about the federalist papers is that they were an argument for a federalized central government holding the power of Union over the states. The finished constitution was indeed different from the propositions in the papers and with the elastic clause and the open powers of regulation of commerce, the “limited government” that you attempt to argue is not the case at all. Moreover, I challenged you to find your argument from the source documents of the founding of this nation; those being The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which you have not done, because you cannot do it. Such language does not exist and I submit that this by intent rather than accident. You are also ignoring the powers of the Amendment process: there is no such limitation to those, and though ratified by the several states they are a federal application.

So, your limited government argument cannot hold water against the source documents, including Federalist 45.

This is as idiotic as all of the rest of your posts.

You argue that there's nothing saying the Constitution grants the government limited powers. The state powers have nothing to do with it; they are not granted by the Constitution, and thus, have nothing to do with the question. This, too, is among the very basic things to understand about the Constitution, which also appears to be miles above your head.

The rest of it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

More ad-hominem.

Let's add "ad hominen" to the list of terms misused by you, because there's no actual ad hominem in what you quoted. It's a description of your posts.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

This is as idiotic as all of the rest of your posts.

You argue that there's nothing saying the Constitution grants the government limited powers. The state powers have nothing to do with it; they are not granted by the Constitution. This, too, is among the very basic things to understand about the Constitution, which also appears to be miles above your head.

The rest of it has nothing whatsoever to do with that question.

Now you've completely ignored your own source for your argument. You only say it's idiotic: that's a dodge. The state and federal powers are clearly under the same umbrella. The sate powers were emphasized by the X Amendment.

Look, you can't refute my argument drawn from yout own citatation and there is nothing in the primary founding documents to support anything your've said My analysis stands as does my argument; unchallenged.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Let's add "ad hominen" to the list of terms misused by you, because there's no actual ad hominem in what you quoted. It's a description of your posts.

Turing the subject into the arguer is ad-hominem. That's a fact.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Now you've completely ignored your own source for your argument. You only say it's idiotic: that's a dodge. The state and federal powers are clearly under the same umbrella. The sate powers were emphasized by the X Amendment.

State power is not granted by the Constitution, not even in the 10th Amendment. You know nothing -- NOTHING -- about the Constitution.

Look, you an't refute my argument drawn from yout own citatation

It had nothing to do with the point.

and there is nothing in the primary founding documents to support anything your've said My analysis stands as does my argument; unchallenged.

And thus you erect an Impenetrable Wall of Ignorance. Nothing left to be said here.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Turing the subject into the arguer is ad-hominem. That's a fact.

Uh, no, the "fact" is that an "ad hominem" is making reference to the arguer personally in an attempt to refute the argument he makes. I, of course, did not do that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

This is as idiotic as all of the rest of your posts.

You argue that there's nothing saying the Constitution grants the government limited powers. The state powers have nothing to do with it; they are not granted by the Constitution, and thus, have nothing to do with the question. This, too, is among the very basic things to understand about the Constitution, which also appears to be miles above your head.

The rest of it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point.

The constitution grants specific and limitted (enumerated) powers to the federal gov't, grants (reserves) specific rights directly to the people and leaves all else to the several states to decide. Demanding commerce is not regulating it, as never before has the gov't, at any level said that you must buy any private product (except as a condition of using a specific privilege, e.g. requiring auto insurance to drive on public roadways) or pay a tax/fine should you not.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

State power is not granted by the Constitution, not even in the 10th Amendment. You know nothing -- NOTHING -- about the Constitution.




It had nothing to do with the point.





And thus you erect an Impenetrable Wall of Ignorance. Nothing left to be said here.

I never said The Constitution granted anything to anyone or group.

Look, you can't meet the challenge: I didn't think you'd be able to pull it off. Your assertion is unsubstantiated and I'm not going to go around and around with your ad-hominem. You cannot refute my argument; so there it stands.

We're done here.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

The constitution grants specific and limitted (enumerated) powers to the federal gov't, grants (reserves) specific rights directly to the people and leaves all else to the several states to decide. Demanding commerce is not regulating it, as never before has the gov't, at any level said that you must buy any private product (except as a condition of using a specific privilege, e.g. requiring auto insurance to drive on public roadways) or pay a tax/fine should you not.

This is the second time today I've had to ask you -- what in my posts prompted this?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I never said The Constitution granted anything to anyone or group.

Of course you did. But you rarely have any idea what you say.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Your "limited powers" proposal is just an assertion; you have to show it from the source documents as passed for the founding of this country in order to state it as a fact, but it's not there. It would have been suicide for the federal government to so corral itself as such, hense the elastic clause. So your argument reamains an unsubstaniated assertion.

Read the constitution in full again. It's not an assertion, it's right in the document.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Read the constitution in full again. It's not an assertion, it's right in the document.

Prove it.
char/10

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Prove it.
char/10

You are asking me to prove something you can read for yourself? What part of the ninth and tenths are confusing you? Tell me that and we'll go from there.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

You are asking me to prove something you can read for yourself? What part of the ninth and tenths are confusing you? Tell me that and we'll go from there.

(chuckle)

You can't do it either. You knowwhy?? 'Cause it ain't there!! That's why!! Now, you want me to read your source and make your argument for you . . .

unbelievable

now comes the ad-hom reply

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I'll humor you. Here are the amendments and their interpretation:

Uh, the IX Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Limited government you say . . . I’m afraid that your powers of interpretation are sorely lacking. It says that the rights possessed by the federal government as a result of The Constitution shall not be (interpreted) to deny or (diminish) other (rights) retained by the people (US).

Now; the X Amendment:

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

Again, you have the same difficulty of interpretation: the Xth is about ‘powers’. It says that powers that are not specifically interpreted as ‘government powers’ (not included) are reserved to two more properties included under the umbrella of the federal government; those of the states and those of the people how make up the states. This of course is up to and including the power to change said government and or its policies.

The federal government and the people who make it up, are in now way limited by a system of social construct that they themselves designed, support and steward.

So, your assertion remains an assertion.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

I'll humor you. Here are the amendments and their interpretation:

Uh, the IX Amendment:

Limited government you say . . . I’m afraid that your powers of interpretation are sorely lacking. It says that the rights possessed by the federal government as a result of The Constitution shall not be (interpreted) to deny or (diminish) other (rights) retained by the people (US).

Sweet Christ, you think that helps you.

Now; the X Amendment:

Again, you have the same difficulty of interpretation: the Xth is about ‘powers’. It says that powers that are not specifically interpreted as ‘government powers’ (not included) are reserved to two more properties included under the umbrella of the federal government; those of the states and those of the people how make up the states. This of course is up to and including the power to change said government and or its policies.

The federal government and the people who make it up, are in now way limited by a system of social construct that they themselves designed, support and steward.

So, your assertion remains an assertion.

You have never -- not once -- interpreted a section of the Constitution correctly. Never. Ever.

The States are not part of the federal government. The People are distinct from the federal government. This Amendment is a limitation on the federal government.

You are . . . astonishing.

 

[jet57]

Re: The limits of the Commerce power?

Sweet Christ, you think that helps you.




You have never -- not once -- interpreted a section of the Constitution correctly. Never. Ever.

The States are not part of the federal government. The People are distinct from the federal government. This Amendment is a limitation on the federal government.

You are . . . astonishing.

Why are you here? You say "there is nothing left to say"; and then you come back! Not to take up the challenge of course but to attack what I say to someone else!

And, as usual, you fail to refer to your own cited source; which I used to prove you wrong again. And yet; actually true to form, you continue to perpetuate this myth of "limited government" based on nothing but you're opinionated assertion.

brilliant

man

Now, if can't keep the ad-hom out of your objections or assertions, then I'm going to relegate you to ignore. This need "to beat me" is getting way out of hand.