It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution vs. the Tenth Amendment

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine may have been admirable abolitionists.

Of course, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves. Jefferson fathered a son by one of them, and it is thought by some historians that Washington did also.

The fact is none of the people you mentioned freed the slaves, regardless of their abolitionist leanings.

Lincoln did.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Sestias]




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I think this conversation has wandered off the topic somewhat, which is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and how it modifies and sometimes clashes with the Tenth Amendment.

In my OP I neglected to include the actual text of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article 1, Section 8, clause 18) which is worded as follows:


The Congress shall have Power - 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.


Wiki goes on to explain the early controversy surrounding the Necessary and Proper Clause, which, it states is:


also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1])


Wiki goes on to describe the early debates which still resonate today:


The clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution's ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers as part of his argument for why the federal government required the powers of taxation. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a "dead letter". At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.[2]


The discussion of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" is relevant to a discussion of the Supremacy Clause because they are both now seen to modify the Tenth Amendment, which actually came AFTER the two clauses in the original Constitution.


For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States


Wiki: Necessary and Proper Clause

I would once again like to guide the discussion back to these two clauses and raise the question of how they seem to contradict the very narrow and strict interpretation given to the Tenth Amendment by many people, especially people on these boards.

Most of the responses to my thread seem to ignore some of the very real contradictions and discrepancies in the United States Constitutions.

Instead of simply reciting the popular interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, I would like to discuss some of the nuances and subtleties that are introduced by looking at the two clauses, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, in relation to the Tenth Amendment.

Ignoring these clauses does not constitute a sufficient argument in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 




I think this conversation has wandered off the topic somewhat, which is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and how it modifies and sometimes clashes with the Tenth Amendment.


Article VI, Clause 2, otherwise known as The Supremacy Clause, never, ever, "modifies" the 10th Amendment. In fact, linguistically speaking, any "modification" would be done through Amendments.

Modify defined:


1. To change in form or character; alter.

2. To make less extreme, severe, or strong: refused to modify her stand on the issue.

3. Grammar To qualify or limit the meaning of. For example, summer modifies day in the phrase a summer day.

4. Linguistics To change (a vowel) by umlaut.


The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17th, 1787. The Bill of Rights came into effect on December 15th, 1791. Common sense dictates that the 10th Amendment wasn't written in order to be "modified" by the Supremacy Clause.

Any "clashes" between the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment come from usurpation of government, either by the federal government, or a state respectively.


"A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute."


Edgar v Mite Corp.

Valid defined:


1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.

2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.

3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.

4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.

5. Archaic Of sound health; robust.



“It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution”


~Alexander Hamilton; The Federalist Papers: #33 (Concerning the Supremacy Clause)~


“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.


~Alexander Hamilton; The Federalist Papers: #78~


“This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution'


~James Iredell; (One of the first Supreme Court Justices)~

If the federal government claims it can invalidate a State law, this makes the federal government the plaintiff in that case. What this means is the federal government carries the burden of proof. Simply pointing to the Supremacy Clause is just not enough, and the federal government must show how federal law, by pointing to a specific clause in the Constitution, outside of the Supremacy Clause, that exclusively delegates authority to Congress to the make the law in the first place. They must show that federal law is indeed in pursuance of the Constitution, and that it is an area expressly prohibited to the States to act upon.




The discussion of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" is relevant to a discussion of the Supremacy Clause because they are both now seen to modify the Tenth Amendment, which actually came AFTER the two clauses in the original Constitution.


I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming that since you emphasized AFTER, that you are recognizing the in-congruency of the notion that both the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause "modify" the 10th Amendment. It is necessarily the other way around, and what has been modified is any assumption that the states are not sovereign and well within their power to enact legislation pursuant to the Constitution.




I would once again like to guide the discussion back to these two clauses and raise the question of how they seem to contradict the very narrow and strict interpretation given to the Tenth Amendment by many people, especially people on these boards.


The 10th Amendment does not contradict the Constitution, it contradicts progressive ideology that hopes to ignore the express language of the 10th Amendment in favor of eliminating state sovereignty. Instead of arguing honorably in favor of repealing the 10th Amendment, an argument that would fall on many deaf ears, these progressives hope to play games of semantics in the dim belief they can baffle people into agreement that the 10th Amendment has no meaning.




Most of the responses to my thread seem to ignore some of the very real contradictions and discrepancies in the United States Constitutions.


You are trying to create contradictions where none exist.




Instead of simply reciting the popular interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, I would like to discuss some of the nuances and subtleties that are introduced by looking at the two clauses, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, in relation to the Tenth Amendment.


Take note how you end with playing the games of semantics by supposing that those of whom you disagree with have ignored the "nuances" and "subtleties" of these clauses. It is a game of semantics, nothing more. Whatever you mean by "reciting popular interpretations", there is in American Jurisprudence, the very real practice of citing proper authorities on the matter. You have done nothing but repeat yourself, and pretend that simply because you failed to actually cite the Supremacy Clause, that I didn't all ready pick up the slack for your failure and cite if for you.

All federal law that has supremacy must be harmonious with the Constitution itself in order to be law. The Supremacy Clause did not grant Congress the authority to legislate whimsy. This is a fact that can be discerned by reading all the nuances, and subtleties of the Constitution as a whole, as well as the overt and express language, rather than narrowly focusing on just two clauses within that Constitution.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You have said I did not give the exact wording of the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, clause 2 of the original Constituion.) Actually I did in the OP.

I will repeat it here:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Wiki: Supremacy Clause

The Tenth Amendment was a later add-on to the original document. It does not nullify either the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Supremacy Clause nor replace them.

What this says is that the powers of the Federal government are broader than the strict constructionists would like us to believe. There are many powers given to the states in the Constitution, but they do not trump the power of the Federal Government in every instance.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





The Tenth Amendment was a later add-on to the original document. It does not nullify either the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Supremacy Clause nor replace them.


Repeating yourself ad nauseum, and pretending that I didn't stress that the 10th Amendment was a later "add-on", (this is the meaning of Amendment), in order to rebut your constant assertion that the Supremacy Clause "modifies" the 10th Amendment, will not change the mistake of facts that you are making. The Supremacy Clause does not "modify" the 10th Amendment. Pretending that I am asserting that the 10th Amendment nullifies the Supremacy Clause is disingenuous.




What this says is that the powers of the Federal government are broader than the strict constructionists would like us to believe. There are many powers given to the states in the Constitution, but they do not trump the power of the Federal Government in every instance.


Where I have cited case law and the Federalist papers, as well as other Founders who actually had a hand in writing the Constitution, you cite Wikepedia as your "authority". To imagine that Wikipedia holds more sway than proper authority is ludicrous.

Further, the Constitution does not "give" any powers to the states, as the Constitution, as made perfectly clear in the Preamble, is ordained by We the People, of which included the original 13 States that pre-exist the Constitution. If you imagine that the 13 States, which were once colonies of Great Britain, fought a tyrant 3,000 miles away just so they could create there own Constitution in order to have tyranny closer to home, this is even more ludicrous than assuming Wikipedia is a proper authority regarding interpretation of the Constitution.

On page two of this thread you made this mistake of fact:




So the "supreme Law of the Land" can overrule the Constitution, apparently.


This is irrefutably false, and I have all ready cited many sources to refute that. You are just ignoring this in order to show your profound disregard for the Constitution. Certainly anyone that would argue that Congress can by legislation, "overrule" the Constitution, the document by which they derive their authority to legislate to begin with, is demonstrably dismissing the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, which is why Article VI, Clause 2 is called the Supremacy Clause.

You are mistaken in your understanding of the Constitution, and if your information comes solely from Wikipedia, rather than simply reading the document for yourself, it is no wonder you have such a gross misinterpretation of The Constitution for the United States of America. Of Course, you hold this position, because you are not misinterpreting it, in my opinion, you are dismissing the validity of the Constitution as Supreme Law of the Land because you understand the restraints that document places on government. The irony is that you are attempting to use as authority a clause from that document in order to dismiss that document.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Oh I see. Anyone who disagrees with you or your interpretations doesn't truly believe in the Constitution.

What I'm saying is the Constitution is a very complex and sometimes self-contradictory document in places. It not ALWAYS given to easy interpretation (other parts are plain as day).

The Constitution was put together by a group of people, each one of whom had his own ideas and priorities. Some members got more of their beliefs into the Constitution than others. There were many compromises. Probably no one member of the committee was completely satisfied with the results.

The result has been disagreements over the interpretation of parts of the document since the founding fathers.

For example, the original document stated that a slave was 3/5 of a person. This was later altered by the 13th and 14th amendments. There are many other sections which are no longer enforced but have never been formally annulled.

We have always been a nation where Constitutional issues have been a matter of life and death to many. For example, the felling of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr.

In short, the Constitution is a living, changing document. It always has been and always will be. We have to work together on this. As Thomas Paine said, "If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately."








[edit on 10-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





Oh I see. Anyone who disagrees with you or your interpretations doesn't truly believe in the Constitution.


Oh I see, when someone calls you on your crap, suddenly you believe in the Constitution, but when it comes to arguing that Congress can "overrule" the Constitution, then you have no regard for the Constitution. Which is it? Do you have regard for the Constitution, or do you place Congress above the Constitution? Don't pretend that placing Congress above the Constitution is a valid "interpretation", it is not. If you want to interpret the Constitution, then do so, but don't offer up interpretations of what Wikipedia says and call that interpreting the Constitution.




What I'm saying is the Constitution is a very complex and sometimes self-contradictory document in places. It not ALWAYS given to easy interpretation (other parts are plain as day).


The Constitution is never contradictory and you have had to stretch plausibility beyond its scope in order to make that assertion. However, it is, as you say, not always easy to interpret. That admission is true, that the Constitution is contradictory is false.




The Constitution was put together by a group of people, each one of whom had his own ideas and priorities. Some members got more of their beliefs into the Constitution than others. There were many compromises. Probably no one member of the committee was completely satisfied with the results.


There was indeed compromises made in order to forge the Constitution. Those compromises were made because many people were all ready happy with the The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which gives plenty of evidence as to the FACT that the Revolution for Independence was not fought in order to replace one tyranny with another. What you are arguing is that Congress can make any laws they want and once legislation is enacted it trumps the Constitution. Such an act is an usurpation of government. Regardless of the differences of opinion and compromises made, those compromises were made to legally enact the Constitution as The Supreme Law of the Land, and all legislation enacted afterward must conform to that Constitution. This is precisely we the Supreme Court has judicial review and why they consistently strike down legislation as unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand about that?

To ignore the FACT that the SCOTUS can and does strike down legislation as unconstitutional in order to push forth an agenda that Congress can legislate whatever they want is dishonest.




The result has been disagreements over the interpretation of parts of the document since the founding fathers.


And those disagreements will continue, but you have now either spoken directly to that Constitution or referenced it five times now. You are playing a game of hypocrisy, where the Constitution means something to you, and then when it comes to the Supremacy Clause you "interpret" it to mean that Congress has been granted Supremacy rather than the Constitution that delegates authority to the Constitution.




For example, the original document stated that a slave was 3/5 of a person. This was later altered by the 13th and 14th amendments. There are many other sections which are no longer enforced but have never been formally annulled.


This is false. The "original document" first of all is the very same document that stands today, and your disingenuousness is unseemly. The Constitution never once uses the word "slave" within that document. Here is the precise language of the "three-fifths" Clause:




Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


You can argue that you meant it was implicitly so, but this is not at all what you said, and what you said was that "the original document stated that a slave was 3/5 of a person." Your willingness to pretend that the Constitution today is reads differently than it did when it was written is just one example of the intellectual dishonesty you are employing in order to push forth your obvious agenda that Congress has supreme authority.

The rules of statutory construction dictate that each and every word be given significance. That the word "slave" is not at all mentioned in the Constitution need be given significance as well. The genius of the Founders, in constructing the "three fifths Clause" was that they did not, neither expressly nor implicitly, condone slavery, and merely, for the sake of apportionment, declared "all other Persons", as counting as three fifths of a person in regards to apportionment. The genius of this lies in the fact that they understood that at some point slavery would be prohibited, and had they made Constitutional the legality of slavery, such a prohibition could have never taken place.




We have always been a nation where Constitutional issues have been a matter of life and death to many. For example, the felling of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr.


You understanding of history is rife with ignorance! Aaron Burr did not challenge Alexander Hamilton to a duel over Constitutional issues.


One of the most famous personal conflicts in American history, the Burr–Hamilton duel arose from a long-standing political and personal bitterness that had developed between both men over a course of several years. Tensions reached a bursting point with Hamilton's journalistic defamation of Burr's character during the 1804 New York gubernatorial race in which Burr was a candidate.


en.wikipedia.org...

From that same article:


The conflict began in 1791 when Burr captured a Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law, who would have supported Federalist policies. (Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury at the time.) When the Electoral College deadlocked in the election of 1800, Hamilton's maneuvering in the House of Representatives caused Thomas Jefferson to be named President and Burr Vice President.


And further continues:


On April 24, 1804, a vitriolic letter originally sent from Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law[8] was published in the Albany Register in the context of opposing Burr's candidacy.[9] It claimed to describe "a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr" at a political dinner. In a letter delivered by William P. Van Ness, Burr demanded "a prompt and unqualified acknowledgment or denial of the use of any expression which would warrant the assertion of Dr. Cooper".



Hamilton's reply on May 20 indicated that he could not be held responsible for Cooper's interpretation of his words. Burr's reply on May 21, also delivered by Van Ness, stated that "political opposition can never absolve gentlemen from the necessity of a rigid adherence to the laws of honor and the rules of decorum".[10] Hamilton replied that he had "no other answer to give than that which has already been given". This letter was delivered to Nathaniel Pendleton on May 22 but did not reach Burr until May 25.[10] The delay was due to negotiation between Pendleton and Van Ness in which Pendleton submitted the following paper:


All leading up to:


The delivery of Hamilton's second letter, a second paper submitted by Pendleton further offered "in relation to any other language or conversation or language of General Hamilton which Colonel Burr will specify, a prompt or frank avowal or denial will be given." This offer was not accepted and a challenge was formally offered by Burr and accepted by Hamilton.


Given this is a Wikepedia article I have cited, and given the dubious nature of Wikepedia, it would be prudent to offer other links that tell a similar, and sometimes slightly different history as to when and how the hostilities began. However, no historical account tells a story of those two dueling over "Constitutional issues"

www.freerepublic.com...

www.pbs.org...




In short, the Constitution is a living, changing document. It always has been and always will be. We have to work together on this. As Thomas Paine said, "If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately."


The Constitution is not a "living, changing" document, and every word written in that document from the beginning remains there today. Do you need the word "living" defined for you? As to your assertion that we have to work together on this, if you keep insisting that Congress can make any law they wish in spite of the Constitutional restraints placed upon them, then we are most assuredly not working together, and you are not an ally of those who merely wish to be free.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


All texts of any length and/or complexity contain ambiguities, contradictions, layers of meaning and etc. The Constitution is no exception. However, this is not the forum for discussing textual deconstruction in detail.

To acknowledge the complexity of a document is not to hate it. To see past simplistic black-and-white interpretations is not tantamount to treason.

It appears that anyone who disagrees with your reading is an enemy.

It must be nice knowing it all.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





All texts of any length and/or complexity contain ambiguities, contradictions, layers of meaning and etc. The Constitution is no exception.


More and more you continue to show profound ignorance for The Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a text of length, nor is it complex, and rarely ambiguous. The Constitution is only 4 sheets long, and contains 4,543 words in it:


Q. What are the exact measurements of the originals of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States? A. The Declaration of Independence: 29 7/8 in. by 24 7/16 in.; The Constitution: four sheets, approximately 28 3/4 in. by 23 5/8 in. each.



Q. How many words are there in the texts in the present volume, and how long does it take to read them? A. The Constitution has 4,543 words, including the signatures but not the certificate on the interlineations; and takes about half an hour to read. The Declaration of Independence has 1,458 words, with the signatures, but is slower reading, as it takes about ten minutes. The Farewell Address has 7,641 words and requires forty-five minutes to read.


www.archives.gov...

Contrast that with the Internal Revenue Code which is a five volume set that is undeniably complex and ambiguous. In fact it is so long, that people can't even seem to agree on how many pages or words are in it:


"the Internal Revenue Code and regulations add up to one million words and is nearly seven times the length of the Bible"


~U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-IN)~


"The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words -- seven times as many words as the Bible. Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws...."


~U.S. Representative Rob Portman (R-OH)~


"The heart of IRS abuse lies in the existing tax code. Most of the folks who work for the IRS are good people just trying to do their job, but they are caught in a bad, overextended tax system. At 3,458 pages, twice the length of the Bible, it's impossible for the average taxpayer to know, understand, and accurately apply its provisions. The length is twice that of the Bible! Even tax experts cannot do so reliably."


~U.S. Representative J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK)~

www.trygve.com...

These are all Congressmen who can't agree on how many words or pages are in the tax code!


The code is so big that politicians can't even agree on how long it is. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code totals to about 3,400,000 million words. The non-partisan Tax Foundation reports that the entire tax code with regulations in 2005 was over 9,097,000 words. To put that in perspective, the Bible has 774,746 words. The code has grown in length between 1995 and 2005 by 18.9 percent. The directions for filing a typical form 1040 totals 161 pages. The "EZ" version is 41 pages.


www.freedomworks.org...

Regardless of the precise word count, and amount of pages, it is sufficient to say that there are far more words and pages in the tax code than there are in the Constitution, and the tax code is irrefutably ambiguous and complex:


The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.


~Albert Einstein~




However, this is not the forum for discussing textual deconstruction in detail.


Excuse me? You are most assuredly deconstructing the Constitution in this thread, and this has been your intent all along. How disingenuous can you be?


To acknowledge the complexity of a document is not to hate it. To see past simplistic black-and-white interpretations is not tantamount to treason.


First of all, no one has accused you of treason, but such a remark certainly demonstrates your proclivity to grossly exaggerate the facts. Secondly, you are attempting to take a simple and straight forward document and paint it as being more complex than it is, and you are doing much more than that. You have asserted that legislation subsequent of that Constitution can "overrule" the Constitution, and when you do that, you certainly show great disregard for that Constitution and the Supremacy Clause which asserts that Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Third, your disingenuous attempt to paint my arguments as "simplistic black-and-white" interpretation is a cheap ploy that is not at all reflective of my interpretation. It is an argument from one who has consistently remained intellectually dishonest.




It appears that anyone who disagrees with your reading is an enemy.


It appears you haven't even bothered to read the Constitution, and as long as you are asserting that subsequent legislation "overrules" the Constitution, you are no advocate of Constitutional principles, and certainly not an ally. Not being an ally does not necessarily make you an enemy, but you have misrepresent facts, history, and The Constitution throughout this thread, and with each step you take, your potential to be an enemy of mine and others certainly exists.




It must be nice knowing it all.


I have never claimed to know it all. I certainly know the Constitution, and in the context of this thread, that is more than you know.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Locoman8
 


George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine may have been admirable abolitionists.

Of course, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves. Jefferson fathered a son by one of them, and it is thought by some historians that Washington did also.

The fact is none of the people you mentioned freed the slaves, regardless of their abolitionist leanings.

Lincoln did.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Sestias]


First off, let me be clear on something. Jefferson was a slave owner only by inheretence. He educated his slaves and treated them with the utmost respect. Jefferson ended the slave trade in Virginia tried numerous times to put an end to slavery. Just because Lincoln succeeded doesn't mean the founders can't be credited for trying. They had congress to compete with. With the Civil War looming, Lincoln had all the support he needed to pass the Emancipation Proclomation... he didn't have the southern slave-owning members of congress to compete with. Thus, this gave an easy opening for Lincoln to be credited with abolishing slavery. It's almost like claiming victory at a football game because the other team was not allowed to show up.


.....And now back to the topic on hand....

You have a progressive view of the constitution which is the view most democrats and liberals have.... even some republicans. Progressive views on the constitution is the idea that one believes it to be a living, breathing document that has to change with the times. One such example is that of the Commerce Clause.... the portion of the constitution used as the reason for passing Obama-care. The progressives interpret this clause as their pass to total control because they can use the excuse of regulating commerce between the states for just about anything. To control food supplies. To control our medical industry. The possibilities are endless for them.

Those of us who are deemed "constitutionalists" deem the document to be a timeless document written to reflect any time in history. It is the closest thing to freedom any country could ask for without pure anarchy. Nothing needs to be changed in the document except maybe to amend it to add term limits to all political offices as being a politicians shouldn't be a career move but a volunteery service to your country.

I mean no disrespect to you but your way of thinking is what causes power-hungry politicians to feel like they're invincible because people who think like you don't question things like the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, etc.... all big burocratic expansions of government not allowed by our constitution.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Thank you for your well-thought-out post.

I tend toward the "liberal" or progressive view of the Constitution but I am not positive about all of it.

I am interested to hear the strict Constitutionalists' point of view as well as the liberals' and that's why I started this thread.

There are still some implied conflicts in the document that puzzle and interest me. I do not believe it is infallible.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


No document is ever infallible. If you ever find one perfect document written by the hand of man, let me know. I think our constitution is as close as it gets though. The constitution and politicians are to me like a verse in the bible explains.....

"15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


Great example isn't it? It's from 2 Peter 3:15-16. Our politicians are taking our document and twisting it to read the way they want it read.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Right on, and more power to you! You are fully correct in that the States created the Federal Government, and the States can dissolve that government too, anytime they wish to. So, Obama, Congress, and Senate professional politicians, enjoy your power while you still can.
It is about to be taken from you.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


The Constitution is the founding document of the federal government. It created it.

If it was not for the Constitution we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

It is not clear in the Constitution that the states can dissolve the federal government.

And as I already pointed out earlier, that issue was settled by the Civil War.



[edit on 16-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Double post.



[edit on 16-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
If you ask me its seems pointless to ponder. After all the Gov. has and will do as they please and that means they have and will disregard the Constitution.

It is in order of power
#1 We the people
#2 The states
#3 The Federal Government

Well thats what it should be but there list goes like this
#1The Federal Government
#2The Federal Government
#3The Federal Government

I mean how can we uphold the our power if we cant stop them from taking away our rights? Who do you call? The FBI?

They pissed on the 6th with the patriot act 1&2. So what can we do? Have them arrest the people who passed the law? Obama's name was on it 2 was it not?

So why ponder on this if it really means they will just do what they want to?



No really who can you call when they take away your rights? Im asking because i would send a letter to the FBI but then ill end up in the news as some crazy guy or ill end up in a Federal jail because of the patriot act.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





It is not clear in the Constitution that the states can dissolve the federal government.


It is much more clear than you care to admit, and for some people the nose on their face is not all that clear, but this does not mean the nose on their face is not clear. It is Article V of The Constitution for the United States that makes perfectly clear the authority and sway the states hold over the federal government:


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


No Constitutional Amendment can be legislated without the approval and ratification of three-fourths of the states, and the state legislature can by their own authority call a Constitutional Convention to pass an Amendment. Thus, the federal government needs approval from the states in order to change the Constitution, but the states does not need approval from the federal government to change the Constitution. This authority coupled with the `10th Amendment shows just how powerful the states, when united as three fourths or more can be.

It would only take 34 States to call a Constitutional Convention and 38 States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution, and if that Amendment be the dissolution of the federal government, then this is the legal and Constitutional way in which to do it, and it is as clear as Article V of the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 





So why ponder on this if it really means they will just do what they want to?


Not since the Civil War has the discontent of the several states been so visible. After the Civil War and leading up to 9/11 the several states seemed content to accept the federal government as supreme, and rarely, if ever, challenged its authority. Since the passage of the first and second Patriot Acts we have seen several States assert by legislation their own sovereignty and the very reason this thread even has any validity at all is because the several states are finally beginning to rely on the 10th Amendment in ways they never did prior to the passage of the Patriot Acts.

Why ponder? More than just pondering is happening today, and there are many states who are fighting legal battles that should have been fought more than 100 years ago.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What I read in the section of Article V of the Constitution that you cited was that Congress and/or two-thirds of the states can propose AMENDMENTS to that document.

An amendment is not the same thing as a federal government, which the Constitution creates.

?????



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What I read in the section of Article V of the Constitution that you cited was that Congress and/or two-thirds of the states can propose AMENDMENTS to that document.

An amendment is not the same thing as a federal government, which the Constitution creates.

?????



You are stubbornly and willfully missing the point. The Constitution itself was ratified by the 13 States that existed at that time. Without the authority and ratification of by those states, there would not have been a Constitution. The Amendment process, very much a part of the Constitution, can not happen without approval from the states, or at least three fourths of the states. Nothing can exist Constitutionally speaking, with out approval from the majority of the states. Combine that with the 10th Amendment and you have a whole that is much greater than the sum of the Supremacy Clause, which does not assert the Supremacy of Congress but the Supremacy of The Constitution that defines the role of Congress, as well as the other two branches of federal government, and to a much, much smaller effect, the roles of the states within the union.

The original 13 states, that all fought a revolution to rid themselves of tyranny, did not agree to replace the Articles of Confederation with The Constitution in order to surrender their sovereignty. You are foolishly ignoring language in The Constitution in order to assert your fantasy of federal supremacy over the states. It does not, Constitutionally speaking, exist, and has only gotten to the point that it has through the bribery of federal funding by the federal government to the states. The Constitution does not, ever at any point, declare federal supremacy over the states.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join