The teaparty conundrum: Do they hate the Constitution?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
This is for the Republicans that have decided to identify with the tea party policy of the GOP.

Every Federal law that doesn't expressly violate the Constitution is protected BY that very document.

en.wikipedia.org...

My question is straight forward:

Do you support the infallibility of the Constitution of the United States of America fully understanding that Article One, section 8, clause 18 states that the Congress can make any damn law it pleases? Including The Patriot Act, Federal Welfare Programs, Gay Marriage, TARP, and Civil Rights for all with no protections at all against Communism or Socialism.. (or Capitalism for that matter)?


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.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 

Do you support the infallibility of the Constitution of the United States of America fully understanding that Article One, section 8, clause 18 states that the Congress can make any damn law it pleases? Including The Patriot Act, Federal Welfare Programs, Gay Marriage, TARP, and Civil Rights for all with no protections at all against Communism or Socialism.. (or Capitalism for that matter)?

Negative, since that's not what this actually says.

Please pay careful attention to

"...which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers (earlier in section 8), and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States..."


This clause only allows the legislation of laws necessary for Congress to fulfill the powers enumerated in the constitution, not to do whatever they want willy-nilly under crazy interpretations of the commerce clause, etc. If a program is not authorized under the constitution directly, or is unnecessary for the fulfillment of the enumerated powers, it is null and void and not justified under this clause.

A good deal of what are government does doesn't meet this requirement.

edit on 5/10/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Not that I would want to throw a wet blanket on the fantastical construct your mind has created allowing you to simultaneously suspend logic, context and reality but your interpretation of the “Necessary and Proper Clause” is not without its problems.

Lets refresh your memory by emphasizing some key language in the Necessary and Proper Clause that you seem unable or unwilling to put into its proper context:


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.


So what are these “foregoing” powers? Is it the power to regulate interstate commerce … sure. Is it the power to force all citizens to purchase health care … maybe not.

Is it the responsibility to defend an individuals choice of religion … sounds about right. Is it the responsibility to pay for a woman’s abortion …. a little iffy.

Is it the power to defend our borders maintain an army and navy … sure, that’s in the constitution. Is it the power to dictate curriculum for elementary schools … funny, I couldn’t find that anywhere.

In short, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives congress the means to accomplishing its enumerated constitutional powers and responsibilities. Its not a catch all granting unlimited power to congress. If that were the case, congress could stipulate that its legislation not be subject to either judicial review or presidential authorization …. after all, such a provision might well be Necessary and Proper under your definition.

You were propabbly just trolling with this post, but if you weren’t, perhaps you would do best to regurgitate your drivel over at democratic underground.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Well, I am no longer a republican and haven't been up to speed on the tea party in a while but your question is only a part of the equation.

I am assuming your thread boils down to this: The congress can make any law they want so if you support the Constitution, then you need to shut up.

But your view ignores our other rights. As in, our right to protest and assembly- we can protest their decisions or proposals. Our right to freedom of speech to disagree with congress. Our right to petition our government. Etc.

The tea party seems to be in line with their rights of protests, assembly, petition, and speech.

Unless I'm missing some point you're trying to make.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 



Man, I feel an ATS beatdown coming for that comment.

You should know who you speak of-which one of them gave you a star & Flag. Go figure I am talking about very respected folks that contributed to your thread. You may not agree with them but insulting them, or anyone, isn't going to get you far.

edit on 5/10/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/10/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/10/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





Negative, since that's not what this actually says.....


Thanks You beat me to it



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


oh he wants to preach to the choir.

thinking people have already been here and thats the respect you show.

you have the makings of a great congressman your way or the highway



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Hmmm... this begs the question.

Is it possible to meet your definition of a thinking person and still disagree with you on this issue?

If your answer to that is "No" you've pretty much limited yourself to only wanting replies from people who agree with you.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Care to elaborate on this? I am not a tea partier nor a republicrat. I do however have the same literal interpretation of that clause. It states simply that congress has the ability to create an law that is necessary and proper to perform the duties it has been explicitly assigned in the constitution.

Are you simply looking for people to blindly agree with you? Is that what constitutes a "thinking" person? You won't get that here.

edit on 5-10-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


You don't think their responses were valid? They pointed out that they can only make laws that pertain to fulfilling their specific duties.

I admit, I'm no Constitution fetishist but I do understand that government has been doing whatever it wishes to for years as it is. I don't see how observing the Constitution in its entirety would make that any worse. Tea Party folks have a lot of flaws but I think their adherence to old-school documents is rather endearing.

Are you only wanting dialog with people who agree with you?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Hmmm... this begs the question.

Is it possible to meet your definition of a thinking person and still disagree with you on this issue?

If your answer to that is "No" you've pretty much limited yourself to only wanting replies from people who agree with you.


Ah, a thinking person!

Now, if I had made a thread for the GOP and only wanted responses that agreed with me.. wow.. I don't think I would be happy with any answer..

... however the unthinking bulletpoints that were fired off aren't really valuable responses especially when the first person cuts a short clause in half to make sure he highlights the part he agrees with, and the second person proves my point by naming two pieces of legislation passed and upheld by federal courts NAMING THIS CLAUSE AS THEIR REASONING.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.

It seems to me that a thinking person would actually take a look at the constitution.
Afterwards if they still are not able to quote it in context or do not understand what they are reading then maybe they should run for office. It seems the only job they are qualified for.

Just saying,
Quad



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.

It seems to me that a thinking person would actually take a look at the constitution.
Afterwards if they still are not able to quote it in context or do not understand what they are reading then maybe they should run for office. It seems the only job they are qualified for.

Just saying,
Quad


I couldn't agree more.

I dont give many stars, but your response was thought provoking and deserves it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
So what are these “foregoing” powers? Is it the power to regulate interstate commerce … sure. Is it the power to force all citizens to purchase health care … maybe not.
Is it the responsibility to defend an individuals choice of religion … sounds about right. Is it the responsibility to pay for a woman’s abortion …. a little iffy.
I noticed your examples are a little bit one sided. But, your examples just aren’t very good, overall.

There is no equivalence between “forc[ing] all citizens to purchase health care” and “the responsibility to pay for a woman’s abortion.” The federal or state government doesn’t force anyone to get abortions.

If they wish to pay for those abortions, however, I don’t see how that is unconstitutional. But I’d love to hear your argument why you believe funding for abortions is unconstitutional. Only four states provide voluntary funding for abortions, by the way.

Additionally, there is already federal legislation restricting and prohibiting public funds for abortions, viz. Hyde Amendment and Stupak-Pitts Amendment.



Is it the power to defend our borders maintain an army and navy … sure, that’s in the constitution. Is it the power to dictate curriculum for elementary schools … funny, I couldn’t find that anywhere.
If you make a judgement of what’s constitutional based on a strict and literal reading of what’s specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then the Air Force is unconstitutional too. It’s clear such literal interpretations are absurd.

If there is a compelling state interest I don’t see why the federal or state government couldn’t, for example, dictate the curriculum for elementary schools. Surely, having an informed and well-prepared youth, is in the best interest of a nation.

But my point is that many constitutional questions don’t have cut-and-dry answers, and certainly aren’t resolved by simply asking if something is explicitly specified in the Constitution.

What is explicitly specified in the Constitution, however, are the words “a well regulated militia,” and many on the right, especially, seem to forget they are there when they talk about 2nd Amendment rights.


edit on 10-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Thinking people have looked at your thread, and have dismissed it as utter tripe. Myself included. Before you post another thread, learn your subject. It'll save a lot of heartache and butthurt.

/TOA



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Thinking people have looked at your thread, and have dismissed it as utter tripe. Myself included. Before you post another thread, learn your subject. It'll save a lot of heartache and butthurt.

/TOA


I am not surprised that you said that actually. Please, continue your fight to.. embrace ignorance.. by ignoring that which you are not able to understand.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Glad to assist what little I can in defense of my republic, sir.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 

... however the unthinking bulletpoints that were fired off aren't really valuable responses especially when the first person cuts a short clause in half to make sure he highlights the part he agrees with, and the second person proves my point by naming two pieces of legislation passed and upheld by federal courts NAMING THIS CLAUSE AS THEIR REASONING.

I was actually just clarifying the part of the clause you apparently didn't bother to read - the necessary & proper clause only applies to the foregoing powers mentioned immediately before said clause in article 1, section 8, as well as the smallish number of other enumerated powers granted to the government in the constitution.

I would definitely appreciate some clarity on how that's only focusing on the part I agree with, as I don't disagree with any of the constitution - it's the government's contract with us, which they unfortunately do not tend to uphold that well.

And I probably won't be the first to rightly point out that, unfortunately, the courts are not infallible and sometimes reveal a shocking disregard for and misinterpretation of the founders' intent in the constitution as can be confirmed easily by reading documents contemporary with its composure and ratification.

It's a simple fact that the government is granted very limited powers in the constitution, as well as the right to pass laws required to fulfill those powers - nothing more or less. Everything else is reserved solely to either the states or the people themselves.


I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.



Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.


Thomas Jefferson was definitely a thinking man - and recognized that the constitution effectively BOUND the government, instead of giving it power to "make any damn law it pleases".

Be well.
edit on 5/10/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Furbs
I'll come back when thinking people have looked at my thread.


Thinking people have looked at your thread, and have dismissed it as utter tripe. Myself included. Before you post another thread, learn your subject. It'll save a lot of heartache and butthurt.

/TOA


I am not surprised that you said that actually. Please, continue your fight to.. embrace ignorance.. by ignoring that which you are not able to understand.


Embrace ignorance? The only one here embracing anything is your firm grasp of irony by calling ME ignorant.

/TOA





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join