• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

Conservative Sword said:
Really? This is your response?

We know, at least, that the founders intended to limit the national government's authority and, hence, enacted the 10th Amendment to make clear that powers not delegated (and need I remind you that the Founders deliberately did not use the word "expressly" to qualify "delegated") to the national government wouold be reserved to the People or the States.

Now, how could anyone reasonable argue that the Founders intended for the "the People" in the 10th Amendment would mean Congress? Come on...there's nothing interesting about such a persepctive. There's nothing reasonable about it. Such a view negates the entire purpose of the 10th.

But you know that...so I don't know why you're playing this game.
Click to expand...

Congress represents the people. The people do not vote on issues, but on representatives. There is no direct vote on issues.

As to the tenth amendment, which I was not arguing specifically:

Federal powers listed in the Constitution include the right to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign trade. In addition to these delegated, or expressed powers (those listed in the Constitution), the national government has implied powers (those reasonably implied by the delegated powers. The implied powers enable the government to respond to the changing needs of the nation. For example, Congress had no specific delegated power to print paper money. But such a power is implied in the delegated powers of borrowing and coining money.

In some cases, the national and state governments have concurred powers -- that is, both levels of government may act. The national government laws are supreme in case of a conflict. Powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states, reserved powers, belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury.

The Constitution of the United States of America

The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment JURISPRUDENCE reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power.

Read more: Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment

How about these things that involve the federal government:

The National Endowment for the Arts

Medicare

Social Security

The Department of Education

Just to name a few. Clearly, our understandings change. How people see things change. People can read the same words and see different meanings overtime. Our Founding fathers could not foresee all the future held. Nor would we really want to live in their world, by their sensibilities. They set forth a guideline, and gave it the room to change and grow. They had to know times would change, just as they saw their time change. What they did was on the radical side, thought not with out influence.

The question is where is the line. And that line will move from time to time. But to state that we have an absolute and unchanging grasp and understanding of this great document is false. It will change each time we change. And that is a good thing. That which does not change is dead.
 
Boo Radley said:
Congress represents the people. The people do not vote on issues, but on representatives. There is no direct vote on issues.

As to the tenth amendment, which I was not arguing specifically:

Federal powers listed in the Constitution include the right to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign trade. In addition to these delegated, or expressed powers (those listed in the Constitution), the national government has implied powers (those reasonably implied by the delegated powers. The implied powers enable the government to respond to the changing needs of the nation. For example, Congress had no specific delegated power to print paper money. But such a power is implied in the delegated powers of borrowing and coining money.

In some cases, the national and state governments have concurred powers -- that is, both levels of government may act. The national government laws are supreme in case of a conflict. Powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states, reserved powers, belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury.

The Constitution of the United States of America

The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment JURISPRUDENCE reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power.

Read more: Tenth Amendment Tenth Amendment

How about these things that involve the federal government:

The National Endowment for the Arts

Medicare

Social Security

The Department of Education

Just to name a few. Clearly, our understandings change. How people see things change. People can read the same words and see different meanings overtime. Our Founding fathers could not foresee all the future held. Nor would we really want to live in their world, by their sensibilities. They set forth a guideline, and gave it the room to change and grow. They had to know times would change, just as they saw their time change. What they did was on the radical side, thought not with out influence.

The question is where is the line. And that line will move from time to time. But to state that we have an absolute and unchanging grasp and understanding of this great document is false. It will change each time we change. And that is a good thing. That which does not change is dead.
Click to expand...

Like you point out in bright bold letters. The 10th amendment continues to be defined. So we will find out where the court stands on this after they have ruled. Unless someone has some great crystal ball and knows what they will say, this back and forth just seems to be a way to kill some time.
 
washunut said:
Like you point out in bright bold letters. The 10th amendment continues to be defined. So we will find out where the court stands on this after they have ruled. Unless someone has some great crystal ball and knows what they will say, this back and forth just seems to be a way to kill some time.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no problem killing a little time ;), but that would be my point. It isn't certain how they will rule or where the limits are. I think for the most part, that is where the argument lies, and that the line will change again and again over time.
 
Conservative Sword said:
No, that's not the discussion. The discussion is the reasonableness of a poster's argument that the 10th Amendment reeally means that an authority not delegated to the national government is really delegated to ... the national government.
Click to expand...

One discussion is a subset of the other, but whatever makes you happy.

Conservative Sword said:
I already did by noting its absurdity. The language of the 10th makes it clear that his perception/interpretation is absurd.
Click to expand...

That's simply not enough, because the issue at hand is a disagreement over an interpretation of the wording of the 10th Amendment.

In order to illustrate your interpretation is correct, it is incumbent upon you to produce language from elsewhere in the Constitution which supports your view.

Conservative Sword said:
Are you really serious here? You think there's validity to his interpretation that the 10th means that powers not delegated to the national government rest with the...Congress? Really?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it, but when he stated it was his opinion only, I was content to let it go as a difference of opinion.

You, who continue to argue his position is absurd, need to prove your point or admit that your position is your opinion only.

Conservative Sword said:
The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.
Click to expand...

You are, apparently, mistaken.

Conservative Sword said:
And you thought it interesting to which I replied, Bunk! There's nothing interesting about an interpretation of the 10th that completely renders to point of the 10th irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.

Conservative Sword said:
This is ridiculous. Limited government is a first principle of this nation's founding. The concept of checks and balances...not a mechanism to preserve limited government? Three, co-equal branches, again, not a mechanism to limit power?
Click to expand...

Then the language necessary to prove your point should be easily found. All you have to do is serve it up. :D

Conservative Sword said:
No wonder so many of you simply roll over and accept any exercise of government power no matter whether it's permissible or not.
Click to expand...

Nobody rolled over here.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Now, how could anyone reasonable argue that the Founders intended for the "the People" in the 10th Amendment would mean Congress?
Click to expand...

Because Congress consists of duly elected representatives of "the People."

Conservative Sword said:
Come on...there's nothing interesting about such a persepctive. There's nothing reasonable about it. Such a view negates the entire purpose of the 10th.

But you know that...so I don't know why you're playing this game.
Click to expand...

Do you actually relegate dissenting opinions to the scrap-heap of the unreasonable, or do you just do that to get a rise out of people?
 
rabbit_pancake.jpg
 
washunut said:
Like you point out in bright bold letters. The 10th amendment continues to be defined. So we will find out where the court stands on this after they have ruled. Unless someone has some great crystal ball and knows what they will say, this back and forth just seems to be a way to kill some time.
Click to expand...

And no one has a problem with the courts unilaterally defining what that balance is? Silliness. I know many people have just accepted this false concept that the court is the superior branch of government sitting in judgment of legislative and executive actions. It doesn't make it constitutional, though.

And, I think that Boo really meant "twist the Constitution to mean whatever I want it to mean at some moment in time" rather than "redefine."
 
ScottD said:
"I don't worry about the constitution"

Great quoting skills there genius. Also, he could have just said "Article 1 Section 8" and he would have answered the question, because the Health Care bill is justified in that section.
Click to expand...

Well he should worry about upholding the constitution because that is his job.
 
akyron said:
Well he should worry about upholding the constitution because that is his job.
Click to expand...

He is...the Constitution just hasn't caught up with him. These liberals are ahead of the constitutional curve is all...
 
Conservative Sword said:
And no one has a problem with the courts unilaterally defining what that balance is? Silliness. I know many people have just accepted this false concept that the court is the superior branch of government sitting in judgment of legislative and executive actions. It doesn't make it constitutional, though.

And, I think that Boo really meant "twist the Constitution to mean whatever I want it to mean at some moment in time" rather than "redefine."
Click to expand...

So would you not want the country to adhere to the supreme court? If so do you think we should be some type of banana republic where whomever controls the military rules.

It is just for intemperate times such as these, with radicals on both sides that we need a strong supreme court to insure that the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
 
washunut;1058674376the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE said:
I am not even sure votes are even counted these days. 200 European bankers dish out the orders these days.
Click to expand...
 
washunut said:
So would you not want the country to adhere to the supreme court? If so do you think we should be some type of banana republic where whomever controls the military rules.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaaa!!

When the SCOTUS oversteps its bounds then the Congress should reign it in. You aware of a concept called checks and balances, right? Why is it that only the court is privileged to exercise a check?

It is just for intemperate times such as these, with radicals on both sides that we need a strong supreme court to insure that the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Strong Supreme Court = one that exercises illegitimate legislative authority. Example - see expansion of Commerce Clause; see Kelo; See Roe's majority finding new rights in the shadows, pernumbras, etc of amendments. It's otherwise called invention.
 
Conservative Sword said:
And no one has a problem with the courts unilaterally defining what that balance is? Silliness. I know many people have just accepted this false concept that the court is the superior branch of government sitting in judgment of legislative and executive actions. It doesn't make it constitutional, though.

And, I think that Boo really meant "twist the Constitution to mean whatever I want it to mean at some moment in time" rather than "redefine."
Click to expand...

I think I'm a better judge of what I mean than you are. Just want to make that clear.

If there was never any doubt about these things, nothing would ever go to court and there would be no need for judges. I don't say judges are superior in any way, but that it is their role to resolve these things within the law. As language is not as exact as many like to think, this means sides will argue what the meanings and the lines are. And one side will present a winning argument at the time that convinces the judges that it fits or doesn't fit within the law.

And that's not activism or twisting, but how the system works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom