View Poll Results: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    51 60.71%
  • No.

    33 39.29%
Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 174

Thread: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

  1. #81
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Its best to look at Madison for the constitution as he will know what his words mean. Hamilton is secondary.
    He would know what he meant by his words, but that doesn't tell us very much about what the other people involved were signing on to. It's very telling that the founders themselves had fights about the meaning of the Constitution within their own lifetimes. Even they didn't agree as to the meaning of what they signed.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    He would know what he meant by his words, but that doesn't tell us very much about what the other people involved were signing on to. It's very telling that the founders themselves had fights about the meaning of the Constitution within their own lifetimes. Even they didn't agree as to the meaning of what they signed.
    What you write and what you sign are not comparable. It is your duty above all else to understand any contract you sign and that includes the constitution itself. If they did so or not is another subject, but this truth should be understood in any thing you sign your name on in agreement. If you don't you have failed yourself, no one has failed you.

  3. #83
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Wait, you are claiming that 3 people(probably), in expressing their opinions, spoke for every one?
    that was how the people who authored and signed the Constitution viewed it. those were the explanations of the documents themselves.

  4. #84
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that was how the people who authored and signed the Constitution viewed it. those were the explanations of the documents themselves.
    Nooooo...that was how 3 people viewed it.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #85
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,423

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    In theory your idea even falls apart. Only if you ignore the general will of people to demand superiority or control of a system, any system, do you believe your theory. People will always demand what will give them an advantage over others, they will always push their wills in government regardless of what others think, and they will always want power above all else. In your system even in theory it would fall apart.

    Government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of our rights and our liberty. It is not there to violate our liberty, to give people want they desire, or anything even close to what you have demanded from them.
    I read your response 4 times, and all I can say is... What?

  6. #86
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The tenth reserves very specific powers to the federal government and remands those not listed to the states. The tenth has been much abused since the late nineteenth century, the problem being that many politicians have expanded the definition of interstate commerce to include all transactions, the original intent was to settle interstate trade disputes and to serve as a boundry to establish where power stands. Unfortunately post civil war the mentality has become such that the federal is considered the arbiter of power differences and they tend to enhance their own interests.
    See? I was right. It's all about the commerce clause. It's not legal framework that has changed since the nineteenth century, nor is it how the tenth amendment has been applied. It's the commerce that has changed. Local business isn't local anymore. Commerce went from small and primarily intrastate to being interstate. The tenth amendment does not prohibit changes in law to adapt to changes in commerce. The original intent, as you put it, expected horses to be the fastest means of travel, and did not envision the ability to go anywhere in the country, or, more importantly, ship goods anywhere in the country, in a single day.

    It's not a post civil war thing. It's a modern technology thing. It was the transcontinental railroad, not the war, that made all the difference. They just happened to take place in the same decade, so it's reasonable to mistake the real cause.

    The tenth amendment does reserve specific powers to the federal government. The regulation of trade that exceeds the boundaries of a single state is one of those specific powers. It also has never been abused. The interpretation of the tenth amendment that I'm relaying to you is not a new one. It has been consistently held this way since its ratification. The most succinct statement of this was in US v. Sprague in 1931, but the decision in that case traces its roots all the way back to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, which is also a landmark case in showing that federal decisions outweigh state ones in matters that expand beyond that single state. 1816, I might add, was long before the Civil War.

    I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation that the federal government is indeed one of limited power. It is presumed not to be able to do something unless it has specific authorization to do it, and the tenth amendment is one such guarantee of that position. However, your view about the regulation of interstate commerce is unequipped to deal with commerce in the 21st century. If commerce were to settle itself into intrastate again, then the ability of the federal government to regulate it would be severely hampered. But it was not law that changed, but commerce.

    What I must staunchly disagree with is your notion that the view of the tenth amendment has changed over time. It hasn't. This is not opinion, but the summation of what dozens of supreme court justices have said in their decisions over the last two centuries. If you want a way to reduce the power of the federal government (something I disagree with, as I see no intrinsic benefit to giving states more power and plenty of detriment), the tenth amendment isn't it.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #87
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    See? I was right. It's all about the commerce clause. It's not legal framework that has changed since the nineteenth century, nor is it how the tenth amendment has been applied. It's the commerce that has changed. Local business isn't local anymore. Commerce went from small and primarily intrastate to being interstate. The tenth amendment does not prohibit changes in law to adapt to changes in commerce. The original intent, as you put it, expected horses to be the fastest means of travel, and did not envision the ability to go anywhere in the country, or, more importantly, ship goods anywhere in the country, in a single day.
    One very key thing. While commerce is interstate over a large percentage, certainly moreso than in the early days of the republic there doesn't seem to be a trading dispute. Without the key dispute politicians are simply using the poor excuse that because more commerce is traded that it is subject to federal regulation which does not meet necessary and most of the regs are far from proper.

    It's not a post civil war thing. It's a modern technology thing. It was the transcontinental railroad, not the war, that made all the difference. They just happened to take place in the same decade, so it's reasonable to mistake the real cause.
    Actually, the first constitutional abuses came pre civil war which are the main reasons that tensions over slavery ignited into regional fracturing. Tariffs which violated the tenth were levied on southern cotton and northern factories bought the cotton at a sub standard rate as compared to european trading partners. There were more abuses but history is not my strongest subject. Post war the SCOTUS ruled that the states do not have the right to secede which is not found anywhere in the actual constitution and not even interpretable, because of this major loss the next century was set up to water down the constitution with federal immunity to any actual consequence. Wilsonian democracy, the Roosevelts, Nixon, and many other politicians used the expanding federal to circumvent constitutional protections and grossly watered down the ninth and tenth(especially the New Deal and LBJ's Great Society).
    The tenth amendment does reserve specific powers to the federal government. The regulation of trade that exceeds the boundaries of a single state is one of those specific powers. It also has never been abused.
    Actually, it is to resolve trade issues, not regulate just anything that crosses state lines. It was a willful misinterpretive process that has excluded the necessary argument of conflict that has led to the current thinking on the amendment. The interpretation of the tenth amendment that I'm relaying to you is not a new one.
    It has been consistently held this way since its ratification. The most succinct statement of this was in US v. Sprague in 1931, but the decision in that case traces its roots all the way back to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, which is also a landmark case in showing that federal decisions outweigh state ones in matters that expand beyond that single state. 1816, I might add, was long before the Civil War.
    This is incorrect, the founders were for the most part very clear on decentralization within their writings, sure some did want a strong federal but the compromise was to limit the fedgov to it's most minimal effective scope. Later on politicians would bastardize this process.
    I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation that the federal government is indeed one of limited power. It is presumed not to be able to do something unless it has specific authorization to do it, and the tenth amendment is one such guarantee of that position. However, your view about the regulation of interstate commerce is unequipped to deal with commerce in the 21st century.
    Actually, I disagree. Most states are compelled to keep their trading partners happy under free market competitive principles. We actually lose natural leverage when the federal steps in, for example Louisiana cannot get a fair price on oil leases and we have the lowest return on our oil trade but the federal handles that, if say.......California has an oil crunch and did not pay us a fair trade and chose Texas we could leverage Texas easily to withold suppy or change rates because our two states are interdependant on oil, if Cali had a problem they could in theory petition the federal government which would have no choice but to find for Louisiana because California would be involved in preferential trading practices which is constitutionally unsound. Similarly California could withold ag products or Silicone Valley goods if a state were to treat them unfairly etc. The idea is for the most sound trading, not a fully regulated market and as such if a state does have as problem with a federal action the federal is the final arbiter, this is not a good thing as obviously they will often find in their own favor.
    If commerce were to settle itself into intrastate again, then the ability of the federal government to regulate it would be severely hampered. But it was not law that changed, but commerce.
    Honestly it comes down to dispute, barring that the federal really should **** off.(no disrespect to you, rather the federal)
    What I must staunchly disagree with is your notion that the view of the tenth amendment has changed over time. It hasn't. This is not opinion, but the summation of what dozens of supreme court justices have said in their decisions over the last two centuries. If you want a way to reduce the power of the federal government (something I disagree with, as I see no intrinsic benefit to giving states more power and plenty of detriment), the tenth amendment isn't it.
    Most of the public doesn't really concern itself with the constitution I'm afraid, at least that is my perception. That being said I feel that most people probably don't have a view on the tenth and either generally reject or accept either the federalist or anti-federalist arguments instinctively. As well I will still assert that some politicians on the federal level may still understand the tenth as it was posited and willfully mis-apply it, and I wouldn't be surprised if some have bought the "new view" of said BOR amendment.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 12-08-11 at 02:26 AM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #88
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Nooooo...that was how 3 people viewed it.
    no, that's how the things' author and the other two who were charged with explaining it did so. those are the conditions and rules set by under which it was voted on - that is the deal that was made. you want to change the deal, then you have to do so according to the rules laid down.

  9. #89
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Good grief, I was hoping he was joking.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  10. #90
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no, that's how the things' author and the other two who were charged with explaining it did so. those are the conditions and rules set by under which it was voted on - that is the deal that was made. you want to change the deal, then you have to do so according to the rules laid down.
    Now you are rewriting history. When you have to do that to defend your point, it has failed miserably. 55 people where involved in forming our constitution, 3 people(most likely) wrote the Federalist papers, and the primary author, among other things, opposed the bill of rights. So no, the federalist papers are not the end all of constitutional discussion. Learn our history before lecturing on the topic.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •