• 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

TacticalEvilDan said:
I actually didn't characterize your motivations in any way.

I characterized your behavior.

Talk about strawman...
Click to expand...

You didn't attempt to impute a motivation into my posts here?

You're more interested in trapping me than you are in talking to me.
Click to expand...

That's not fabricating a motivation and then attributing it to me as the basis for my comments?

No?

Really?

I must be nuts!

This conversation is over.
 
Conservative Sword said:
You didn't attempt to impute a motivation into my posts here?
Click to expand...

Nope, as I said, I characterized your behavior.

Your responses to me, just like this one, quickly became focused on splitting hairs in an attempt to score points on me, instead of responding to my argument.

Conservative Sword said:
That's not fabricating a motivation and then attributing it to me as the basis for my comments?

No?

Really?
Click to expand...

No, really, it's not.

Conservative Sword said:
This conversation is over.
Click to expand...

Oh, thank goodness. You were running out of hairs to split, I was wondering what you were going to split next. :lol:
 
LOL...I see. So powers not specifically granted to Congress are only reserved to the States only if the States act on those powers? Otherwise, the power is just granted to the national government? :confused:
Click to expand...

Basically it is saying the State has a right to fill in the gaps based on their particular interests and conditions. But it also gives the Congress the ability to expand its capabilities based on changing needs and conditions. Hope that explains it better.


You're rendering the 10th Amendment completely meaningless. So you really believe that the 10th is nothing but a vehicle to grant power to the national government that was never intended to be granted to the national government? :confused:
Click to expand...
\

It is a vehicle that allows us to adjust the constitution based on the nations needs. The constitutions power comes from its ability to adjust to the changes in society, but still maintaining some core principles.



As citizens we are required to purchase a good/service or we face sanction by the government. Is that not a condition of citizenship?
Click to expand...

Just like were are sanctioned by the goverment to fill in the census or face loss of funds and representation to our commmunity. If the federal goverment forced people to pledge allegiance to Obama, or face jail or expulsion then I can see your point. Taxing people who are costing other people money because they fail to insure themselves, is really a fair practice.
 
OxymoronP said:
Basically it is saying the State has a right to fill in the gaps based on their particular interests and conditions. But it also gives the Congress the ability to expand its capabilities based on changing needs and conditions. Hope that explains it better.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure that those in power would interpret the 10th Amendment as such, I do not believe that that was how its use was intended.

The Constitution was written to be a document which explicitly defined the powers of the federal government. The 10th Amendment was put in place as a reminder that anything not explicitly granted to the feds was beyond the power of the government.

OxymoronP said:
It is a vehicle that allows us to adjust the constitution based on the nations needs. The constitutions power comes from its ability to adjust to the changes in society, but still maintaining some core principles.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that it is Congress' job to "adjust" the Constitution. That's what the amendment process is for.

That said, I do think that the Constitution is far too static, especially now with as many citizens and state government as we have, and Thomas Jefferson would've agreed:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
Click to expand...

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Amending the Constitution
 
]While I'm sure that those in power would interpret the 10th Amendment as such, I do not believe that that was how its use was intended.

The Constitution was written to be a document which explicitly defined the powers of the federal government. The 10th Amendment was put in place as a reminder that anything not explicitly granted to the feds was beyond the power of the government.
Click to expand...

How do you define the words "Or the people"? What do you think that means?


I do not believe that it is Congress' job to "adjust" the Constitution. That's what the amendment process is for.
Click to expand...

Amending the constitution is pretty diffucult, the tenth Amendment gives the flexibility to the goverment, so that they can best represent the people. Likei Health care, instead of creating sweaping amendments that would expand the power of the goverment, the goverment can make adjustments through use of the 10th amendment. And if the change conflicts with another constitutional concept then the Supreme court can strike it down, the Supreme court cannot strike down an amendment.
 
OxymoronP said:
How do you define the words "Or the people"? What do you think that means?
Click to expand...

Literally, as in individual citizens.

I don't interpret that as creating a cycle by which the federal government, as it represents "the people," is able to use the fact that it represents "the people" to expand the powers of the federal government.

OxymoronP said:
Amending the constitution is pretty diffucult, the tenth Amendment gives the flexibility to the goverment, so that they can best represent the people.
Click to expand...

My whole point is that the 10th Amendment doesn't give any flexibility to the government, it explicitly limits the power of the government.

Do you have any prescedent, court decisions and the like, where the 10th Amendment is thusly invoked?
 
Literally, as in individual citizens.

I don't interpret that as creating a cycle by which the federal government, as it represents "the people," is able to use the fact that it represents "the people" to expand the powers of the federal government.
Click to expand...

It does not say the individual, it says the people, who are directly represented by the Congress. Thus the power is retained by the Congress. It is a logical conclusion based on the legal language in the amendment.


Do you have any prescedent, court decisions and the like, where the 10th Amendment is thusly invoked?
Click to expand...

I dont think it was ever challenged.
 
OxymoronP said:
It does not say the individual, it says the people, who are directly represented by the Congress. Thus the power is retained by the Congress. It is a logical conclusion based on the legal language in the amendment.
Click to expand...

"The people" were not represented by Congress in full at the time the Amendment was put in place. At the time, the Senate represented the states. They were essentially ambassadors from the various state governments to the national government, installed to keep the national government from overreaching its authority and usurping the power of the individual states.

Since it requires both the House and the Senate to pass a bill that then goes before the President for signature or veto, I believe your interpretation of the Amendment is erroneous.

OxymoronP said:
I dont think it was ever challenged.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me rephrase.

Can you cite a court decision that ever authorized the feds to do anything based on your interpretation of the 10th Amendment?

In other words, is this your opinion, or is it established precedent?

I suspect it's your opinion and nothing more, seeing as how so much of what the feds have done were justified by invocation of the commerce clause and not the 10th Amendment.
 
Weird where the thread goes when the OP is so easily proven to be nonsense.
 
The people" were not represented by Congress in full at the time the Amendment was put in place. At the time, the Senate represented the states. They were essentially ambassadors from the various state governments to the national government, installed to keep the national government from overreaching its authority and usurping the power of the individual states.
Click to expand...

You raise good points.

Since it requires both the House and the Senate to pass a bill that then goes before the President for signature or veto, I believe your interpretation of the Amendment is erroneous.
Click to expand...

I dont believe its erroneos, I believe there is always room for interpetation and your point of view has logic too.


Okay, let me rephrase.


In other words, is this your opinion, or is it established precedent?
Click to expand...



It is my opinion.
 
OxymoronP said:
Basically it is saying the State has a right to fill in the gaps based on their particular interests and conditions. But it also gives the Congress the ability to expand its capabilities based on changing needs and conditions. Hope that explains it better.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The Amendment explicitly says that powers not granted to the national granted are reserved to the states or the people.

Where does the 10th specify that Congress has the ability to expand it's capabilities based on changing needs?

It simply does not.

It is a vehicle that allows us to adjust the constitution based on the nations needs. The constitutions power comes from its ability to adjust to the changes in society, but still maintaining some core principles.
Click to expand...

Where do you get these ideas from. Your interpetation completely neuters the 10th Amendment and renders the concept of limited government meaningless.

You're quite literally saying that the 10th Amendment has zero meaning because the Congress can simply grant itself unlimited authority based on something called changing conditions...absurd.

Just like were are sanctioned by the goverment to fill in the census or face loss of funds and representation to our commmunity.
Click to expand...

Huh? At the least, the census is constitutional function and thecitizxens are required to complete. The sanction is not the risk of communities losing federal funding opportunities. The sanction is criminal prosecution. Obamacare requires the purchase of a private service. How is that anything at all like completing a constitutional process?

If the federal goverment forced people to pledge allegiance to Obama, or face jail or expulsion then I can see your point. Taxing people who are costing other people money because they fail to insure themselves, is really a fair practice.
Click to expand...

Sheesh...follow your logic. You are explicitly saying that the national government has unlimited authority to do whatever it wants. This is absurd not only constitutionally, but morally as well.

I can see that you prefer to use the Congress to simply impose your preferences on everyone else...nothing else explains such an ignorant and foolish perception of the Constitution and the unerlying principle of limited government.
 
OxymoronP said:
How do you define the words "Or the people"? What do you think that means?
Click to expand...

Um, maybe as, you know, the People. As in, except for that the national government is enumerated to perform, those other things are reserved to the states...you know, like intrastate commerce. You really believe that the Founders intended for the national government to not only regulate interstate commerce but also intrastate commerce? Funny how the Founders never got around to actually putting that in the Constitution.

Amending the constitution is pretty diffucult, the tenth Amendment gives the flexibility to the goverment, so that they can best represent the people.
Click to expand...

What? The Founders intended the 10th Amendment as an end-round to the amendment process...:rofl


Likei Health care, instead of creating sweaping amendments that would expand the power of the goverment, the goverment can make adjustments through use of the 10th amendment. And if the change conflicts with another constitutional concept then the Supreme court can strike it down, the Supreme court cannot strike down an amendment.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Come on...this is absurd. The 10th has always been recognized to reserve to the States or the people power not granted to the national government. If, as you suggest, it was intended to be used as a vehicle to end-run the Amendment process then why have the Amendment process in the first place.

Please cite any legal text or theory that supports your reasoning here...it is completely unfounded.
 
OxymoronP said:
I dont believe its erroneos, I believe there is always room for interpetation and your point of view has logic too.
Click to expand...

The difficulty with your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is that it essentially permits to the government to do just about anything it wants. The Constitution was intended to strictly limit the government's reach, and your interpretation runs directly contrary to that very explicit intent.

If your argument is that the Constitution needs to change to meet the needs of America as it exists today, I'm with you, but not the way you suggest.

OxymoronP said:
It is my opinion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Conservative Sword said:
No it is not. The Amendment explicitly says that powers not granted to the national granted are reserved to the states or the people.

Where does the 10th specify that Congress has the ability to expand it's capabilities based on changing needs?

It simply does not.
Click to expand...

His take on the 10th Amendment depends on his interpretation of the term "the people."

My interpretation of the term (and, likely, yours as well) characterizes "the people" as essentially being individual citizens, rather than members of a group who are in turn represented by someone else.

His interpretation of the term characterizes "the people" as being a group who are represented by Congress, which in turn (at least in thoery) carries out the will of (or at least tries to represent the best interests of) "the people." As such, according to his interpretation, that which is granted to "the people" is held in trust by Congress.

Conservative Sword said:
Where do you get these ideas from. Your interpetation completely neuters the 10th Amendment and renders the concept of limited government meaningless.
Click to expand...

It completely neuters your interpretation of the 10th Amendment, but it goes a very long way towards his apparent belief that the Constitution should be more fluid than it is.

Conservative Sword said:
Sheesh...follow your logic. You are explicitly saying that the national government has unlimited authority to do whatever it wants. This is absurd not only constitutionally, but morally as well.
Click to expand...

No, actually, he did mention previously that we still have the courts to check the power of Congress and the President.

Conservative Sword said:
I can see that you prefer to use the Congress to simply impose your preferences on everyone else...nothing else explains such an ignorant and foolish perception of the Constitution and the unerlying principle of limited government.
Click to expand...

Both sides alternate between using their particular interpretations of the Constitution and using federal law to impose their preferences on everyone else. When they want the government to abstain from involvement, they wave the Constitution around. When they want the government to be involved, they use federal law to make it so.

Both sides do this.

Not just his side.

Both sides.
 
Conservative Sword said:
You really believe that the Founders intended for the national government to not only regulate interstate commerce but also intrastate commerce? Funny how the Founders never got around to actually putting that in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It seems more like his point is that the Constitution needs to be adjusted to fit the times, rather than adhere to competing interpretations of a 200 year-old abstract ideal.

Conservative Sword said:
Come on...this is absurd. The 10th has always been recognized to reserve to the States or the people power not granted to the national government.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently not always, because he has a much different interpretation of what that Amendment means.

I don't agree with it, but he's apparently given it some thought and it is interesting, if nothing else.

Conservative Sword said:
Please cite any legal text or theory that supports your reasoning here...it is completely unfounded.
Click to expand...

He's already said it's his opinion, rather than established precedent.
 
I guess I'm just slow on the uptake here...what is at all interesting about taking the 10th Amendment and completely flipping it on it's head? His interpretation of the people really being Congress makes no sense...unless you completely ignore the rest of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the entire basis underlying the founding of this nation. I just don't see that as interesting...not even in a lets think out of the box kinda way. It's just ignorant.

BTW - how does his interpretation neuter my interpretation? My interpretation actually rests on founding principles and concepts. His rests on, well, nothing but an overactive imagination that seeks to create out of whole cloth an entirely new meaning for "the people" so he can justify simply imposing his will on others.
 
Conservative Sword said:
I guess I'm just slow on the uptake here...what is at all interesting about taking the 10th Amendment and completely flipping it on it's head?
Click to expand...

It was an idea I hadn't been exposed to before. I tend to find new ideas, even the ones I disagree wholeheartedly with, interesting.

Have you never had that experience? Come on. :lol:

Conservative Sword said:
His interpretation of the people really being Congress makes no sense...unless you completely ignore the rest of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the entire basis underlying the founding of this nation. I just don't see that as interesting...not even in a lets think out of the box kinda way. It's just ignorant.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, my layman's understanding of the Constitution doesn't contain anything explicit which contradicts OxymoronP's interpretation head-on.

Would you care to cite what portions of the Constitution you believe in fact disagree with him?

Conservative Sword said:
BTW - how does his interpretation neuter my interpretation?
Click to expand...

I never said it did. I would, however, be interested to see if you can produce passages from the Constitution or Declaration which directly contradict him.
 
Boo Radley said:
This more gottcha efforts that doesn't seek to understand but to make something into something it isn't.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Could the effort to get this guy to feed the IDIOT behind the camera be any more transparent?
 
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.
 
Conservative Sword said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Conservative Sword said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative Sword said:
I have no obligation to prove a negative here.
Click to expand...

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.

Conservative Sword said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

:D
 
Boo Radley said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The plain language makes his interpretation untenable.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom