Originally posted by burntheships
It is vital to the Republic to uphold The Constitution and act within in it rather than amend it,
I disagree. There have been many ammendments in the past made by congress that were necessary, and many ammendments that individuals like you im sure
readily support.
The 2nd ammendment, right to bear arms, was added to the constitution 14 years following the original constitutional drafting. 4th ammendment against
unreasonable search and siezures. Suffrage no longer restricted by race (15th ammendment). These are just minor examples of constitutional ammendments
by congress following the original drafting the constitution. By your definition, all those ammendments are wrong.
At the end of the day it depends on your personal beliefs over certain ammendments, but the necessity of congress to add to the constitution every
once in a while is real.
if that is you believe that The Constiatution should be upheld.
The constitution can be still upheld and ammended at the same time. No where in the constitution does it state non-preference towards ammendments. The
founding fathers foresaw changing times and the necessity of ammendments to clarify the rights of the individual.
could the government possibly uphold amendments if it refuses to uphold The Contstitution?
Well thats a moot. The ammendments like it or not are part of the constitution. Upholding the ammendments are upholding the constitution. If you could
be direct as to what original constitutional wording to which the government is not upholding would be much appreciated because I fail to see what
part of the constitution your refering to thats indangered.
Upholding The Constitution is not "right wing" nor "left wing".
Ofcourse. The citizens of this nation are both right and left leaning. You were talking about the citizens concerned, to which I stated you were
incorrect.. using the "citizens of the nation" is a very broadbrush. There are people who believe the constitution is being upheld and needs to be
further upheld with healthcare, and then there are those who feel this is against the constitution.
Both sides represent the citizens of this nation. So when you mentioned "citizens" in general, I felt you were painting a very broad brush in the
actual consensus over the constitution.
Let us just look at this last year...
Economically: The bailouts were unconstitutional. The y Federal Government has no authority to spend the taxpayers money to buy distressed
assets,
I understand your concerns. The bail-outs in my opinion were rather distasteful, however these were overgrown corporations ready to sink the rest of
the nation with them. But beyond your opinion over the bail outs, it is unknown whether it is unconstitutional. However the rulings by the supreme
court during world war 2, the last depression and the federal governments role in the development of the united states during the 40's gave congress
more powers than previously. Because of those court rulings allowing greater authority to congress concerning the war and the depression, it has been
used as reasoning for congress to loan out large corporations that greatly influence the market.
I'd be wary in labelling the bail outs automatically unconstitutional as these overgrown corporate banks had a grea weight and influence over the
economy and likewise over the welfare of americans, welfare that congress is given responsibility over. Congress didnt interfere with the market,
congress gave loans to which these overgrown corporations accepted, and while it seemed distasteful, the was a matter of slowing down any further
collapse into a pending depression.
Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, an expert on constitutional law at Harvard, said in an interview that such a challenge was unlikely to succeed because
the doctrine of Congressional delegation, which flourished in the 1930s, was significantly weakened during the New Deal and never recovered.
The bailout, Professor Tribe said, “certainly tests the outer limits of Congressional delegation authority,” and “if the delegation doctrine
were genuinely alive and well, TARP might be among its potential victims.”
But, he said, recent cases in which the Supreme Court approved broad delegations of authority made it clear that it was unlikely to intervene on
constitutional grounds. As an example Professor Tribe cited the authority conveyed to the federal Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air
Act.
www.nytimes.com...
So past rulings from the courts have broaden the limits of congress to act over what they feel is a danger to the welfare of the nation.
muchn less to take ownership in private fianancial institutions.
How do you expect anybody to take ownership? A market without laws and boundaries (capitalism) eventually leads to corporatism to the point where the
fat cats get too fat to stand themselves up, and likewise when they collapse, the rest of the nation falls the dominos and we, citizens, have to
suffer for it. There is a cycle of financial crises in the unrestrained market, and ultimately we suffer for it.
Take ownership? Corporations legally have the same rights as citizens, and yet we citizens have laws over us to ensure a stable society. Corporations
should take the same responsibility.... and yet they have not taken any responsibility. If the private market wanted to take responsibility, this
crises would not have happened.
[edit on 10-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]
