Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 89

Thread: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

  1. #71
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Dan, you are aware that the founders were establishing a model of limited government, right? That first principle is a theme throughout all of the founding documents.

    I have no obligation to prove a negative here. Rather, the poster posting such an interpretation does have an obligation to cite relevant passages of any founding document that would lead a reader to consider that "the people" is just a synonym for Congress despite the fact that the founders were very clear about limiting the role of the fed govt.
    How limited? I think that is an important question. They did no advocate no federal government, and allow for mechanisms to regulate and interfere. So, how limited and how closed were they to there never being any change?

  2. #72
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Dan, you are aware that the founders were establishing a model of limited government, right? That first principle is a theme throughout all of the founding documents.
    As someone who disagrees with OxymoronP's interpretation of the 10th Amendment, yes, I'm entirely aware of this.

    As Boo Radley very aptly pointed out, the question up for discussion at the moment isn't whether or not they intended limits, but where exactly those limits were and by what mechanisms those limits were established.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    I have no obligation to prove a negative here.
    Nobody's asked you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove, through whatever applicable language you find primarily in the Constitution and secondarily in the Declaration that OxymoronP's interpretation of the 10th Amendment is erronious.

    You asserted he's all confused, now it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is in fact correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Rather, the poster posting such an interpretation does have an obligation to cite relevant passages of any founding document that would lead a reader to consider that "the people" is just a synonym for Congress despite the fact that the founders were very clear about limiting the role of the fed govt.
    Actually, no, he doesn't.

    He admitted, when I asked him, that it was simply his opinion.

    Since you are asserting your view as factually correct, the onus is on you to prove it.

    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  3. #73
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,356

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    How limited? I think that is an important question. They did no advocate no federal government, and allow for mechanisms to regulate and interfere. So, how limited and how closed were they to there never being any change?
    You need to read up on your early American history if you don't know the answers to those questions. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The states had most of the power. Now they have barely any power because we have a warped view that the federal government trumps all. That's not how the Founders created it.


  4. #74
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 12:27 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    159

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    How limited? I think that is an important question. They did no advocate no federal government, and allow for mechanisms to regulate and interfere. So, how limited and how closed were they to there never being any change?
    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.

  5. #75
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 12:27 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    159

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    As Boo Radley very aptly pointed out, the question up for discussion at the moment isn't whether or not they intended limits, but where exactly those limits were and by what mechanisms those limits were established.
    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.

    Nobody's asked you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove, through whatever applicable language you find primarily in the Constitution and secondarily in the Declaration that OxymoronP's interpretation of the 10th Amendment is erronious.
    I already did by noting its absurdity. The language of the 10th makes it clear that his perception/interpretation is absurd.

    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?

    You asserted he's all confused, now it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is in fact correct.
    The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.

    He admitted, when I asked him, that it was simply his opinion.
    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.

    Since you are asserting your view as factually correct, the onus is on you to prove it.
    Prove what? That's it's absurd to argue that while the Founders intended to limit the reach of the federal government and passed the 10th explicitly to limit the national government's power, the 10th really means that power not delegated by the Constitution to the Congress really resides with Congress.

    The plain language of the Amendment renders his interpretation absurd.

    Come on...is anyone debating that the Founder's intention was to create a national government to be a government of limited and enumerated powers?

    You mean to tell me this is not an accepted premise any longer? The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. amendments are not at all intended to be limits on federal power? What the heck are those first ten amendments for?

    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?

    Have our schools failed in this most basic mission to educate us about our nation's founding?

    No wonder so many of you simply roll over and accept any exercise of government power no matter whether it's permissible or not.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #79
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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.
    One discussion is a subset of the other, but whatever makes you happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    I already did by noting its absurdity. The language of the 10th makes it clear that his perception/interpretation is absurd.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.
    You are, apparently, mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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.
    In your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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?
    Then the language necessary to prove your point should be easily found. All you have to do is serve it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    No wonder so many of you simply roll over and accept any exercise of government power no matter whether it's permissible or not.
    Nobody rolled over here.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #80
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Congressman Caught on Video: I dont care about the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Now, how could anyone reasonable argue that the Founders intended for the "the People" in the 10th Amendment would mean Congress?
    Because Congress consists of duly elected representatives of "the People."

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    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.
    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?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •