• 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!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Total voters
    74
I agree that the states did not ratify with the understanding that they were granting plenary legislative power to the government of the union. The union was sold and ratified as having specific, limited, and enumerated powers. It's preposterous to imagine that the sovereign states would submit to a treaty that gave their agent unlimited powers, including the power to exit their treaty. Such a ratification would be tantamount to a suicide pact.

yes, the states would have NEVER ratified the Constitution if the new government had unlimited power, and the states would have to give up their sovereignty.

the evidence is so clear of what the founders intended, which is a limited government.
 
Wrong.

Congress has no power to provide for the general welfare. It has the power to tax, and it has several other enumerated powers. It has no power to provide for the general welfare.

The Constitution says otherwise despite your willful ideologically induced blindness.
 
yes, the states would have NEVER ratified the Constitution if the new government had unlimited power, and the states would have to give up their sovereignty.

the evidence is so clear of what the founders intended, which is a limited government.

Obviously. It is only the power-hungry centralists who wish to pervert the language of the constitution to serve their ends (which is to control the people of other states) who don't see this.
 
Thank you for that list.

And that last one covers the ability to enact programs or spending on behalf of providing for the general welfare.



Put the start of the Article together with the end of that list and its very clear that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and may pass any laws they feel are necessary and proper to achieve that.

I get that right wing ideologues who hate government don't like that reality. tough. That is the way the Constitution reads.


no, it does not.

it means congress can make additional laws which pertain to its 18 duties....foregoing powers

example, the congress as the power of our money system, therefore anything to do with our money, meaning the coining and printing congress can make a law,......like making it illegal to own rag paper, the same kind as the u.s. government uses to make our dollar.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution says otherwise despite your willful ideologically induced blindness.

You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

The constitution says that congress has the power to tax to provide for the general welfare. The power to tax. Not the power to provide for the general welfare.

The constitution contradicts your position, not mine.
 
Obviously. It is only the power-hungry centralists who wish to pervert the language of the constitution to serve their ends (which is to control the people of other states) who don't see this.

some people believe having an all powerful state is the way to go.

however history has proven as the state becomes more powerful, it becomes more corrupt and tyrannical.
 
some people believe having an all powerful state is the way to go.

however history has proven as the state becomes more powerful, it becomes more corrupt and tyrannical.

In every mugging, there is the victim and the mugger. The victim objects to the crime, but the mugger sees it as absolutely necessary an proper to achieve his ends.
 
In every mugging, there is the victim and the mugger. The victim objects to the crime, but the mugger sees it as absolutely necessary an proper to achieve his ends.

"the ends justify the means", is the common language people use today, to justify governments concentration of power and it unconstitutional measures.
 
no, it does not.

it means congress can make additional laws which pertain to its 18 duties....foregoing powers

example, the congress as the power of our money system, therefore anything to do with our money, meaning the coining and printing congress can make a law,......like making it illegal to own rag paper, the same kind as the u.s. government uses to make our dollar.

Only the right wing believes that.
 
"the ends justify the means", is the common language people use today, to justify governments concentration of power and it unconstitutional measures.

A written constitution is an interesting idea, but paper doesn't have the power to constrain government.
 
You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

The constitution says that congress has the power to tax to provide for the general welfare. The power to tax. Not the power to provide for the general welfare.

The constitution contradicts your position, not mine.

And you have truth issues. IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR POST.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Your interpretation is simply inane and is upside down Alice In Wonderland Mad Hatter thinking.

the Constitution is clear that Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare and may pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out those powera. Its all there in Article I Section 8.

I get that radical right wingers who hate government don't like that so will stand on their head and invent all sorts of Mad Hatter interpretations of what is actually there so as to pretend they have a point. Which they do not.

The Constitution says what it says and what it says is that Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare and may pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out those powers.
 
And you have truth issues. IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR POST.

Yeah, it does. Congress has the power to tax, to provide for the general welfare. It has the power to tax. It doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare.

Your interpretation is simply inane and is upside down Alice In Wonderland Mad Hatter thinking.

the Constitution is clear that Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare and may pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out those powera. Its all there in Article I Section 8.

It may be clear to you, but that is not what it says. It makes it clear that congress has the power to tax in order to provide for the general welfare.

I get that radical right wingers who hate government don't like that so will stand on their head and invent all sorts of Mad Hatter interpretations of what is actually there so as to pretend they have a point. Which they do not.

And I get that radical left wingers who hate freedom don't like that the language of the constitution doesn't say what they want, so they stand on their head and invent all sorts of Mad Hatter interpretations that justify their enslaving of their fellow man.


The Constitution says what it says and what it says is that Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare and may pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out those powers.

No, it doesn't say that. You have reading comprehension issues. It says that congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide for the general welfare of the united states. It has the power to lay and collect taxes. That's all. Deal with it.
 
The US Supreme Court does not agree with you.

Game.
Set.
Match.

So your argument is that the federal government has asserted that it's actions are constitutional. And how does this have any bearing on what the constitution says or what it is that the states agreed to?

And as I said before, the federal government will do whatever it wants as long as it has the power to get away with it. The fact that the federal government ignores the constitution means nothing in this particular discussion.
 
Only the right wing believes that.

really? here is the clause you sited.

"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"

what are foregoing powers?........they are the 18 enumerated duties of congress only.

any law which they create which is outside of the enumerated duties is unconstitutional.
 
really? here is the clause you sited.

"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"

what are foregoing powers?........they are the 18 enumerated duties of congress only.

any law which they create which is outside of the enumerated duties is unconstitutional.

A statist will always add, "...unless the federal government says that it's constitutional."
 
The US Supreme Court does not agree with you.

Game.
Set.
Match.

Madison actually says, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, Madison says:


“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:


“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:


“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as


“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; 10 and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”
 
The US Supreme Court does not agree with you.

Game.
Set.
Match.

What? A branch of the federal government thinks that the federal government has unlimited powers? Inconceivable!

No matter how you look at it, there's no sense to the logic that a group of people would make a document designed to limit the scope and power of a government while giving it authority to do anything it wanted. Further, it makes a list of things the government can do, each having ONE power per item, except for one giving it three separate powers at once, and repeating a power even (the common defense part)
 
The States retained sovereignty in all matters not exclusively delegated to the federal government. Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):


“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not … EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…” [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

Federalist No. 62 (5th para):


“…the equal vote allowed to each State [each State gets two U.S. Senators] is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.” (Madison or Hamilton) [boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39 (Madison) (6th para, et seq.)

In Madison’s Report on The Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), he several times refers, in his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, to the States acting “in their sovereign capacity” when, as “the parties to the constitutional compact” they decide “in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated”:


“…The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition….” [boldface mine]

4 Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. E.g.:


“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para)
 
Yeah, it does. Congress has the power to tax, to provide for the general welfare. It has the power to tax. It doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It very clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the USA. The radical right wing does not like it but your sainted hallowed founders did it to you just the same.

This is written in English.
 
So your argument is that the federal government has asserted that it's actions are constitutional. And how does this have any bearing on what the constitution says or what it is that the states agreed to?

Because the US Supreme COurt is the decider on these issues through its power of judicial review. That is how it has bearing on this.

The fact that you think the federal government ignores the Constitution means nothing in this discussion no more than any other self imposed belief which is not borne out by reality.
 
Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Article I, Section 8.


that's right, and it is the powers enumerated to congress, and there are 18 of them, which binds the compact.

congress does not have unlimited power to act at will.
 
Back
Top Bottom