• 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!

Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

Do you care?


  • Total voters
    55
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
That is not a simple question.

I tend to think it's a bad idea for a government that claims to operate under the rule of law to violate their own laws. There are probably a few specific circumstances where it would be reasonable to do so, but even if so, is highly questionable and requires very strict oversight.

It also depends who is defining the violation. Many people have very different views on what constitutes a constitutional violation than the legal system does.

Not saying either are right, necessarily.
 
Flaw 1: It was written during a different cultural and socioeconomic times.
Flaw 2: Wording can be ambiguous.

Both are absolutely crippling flaws for any legal document.

As a progressive, I would think you would love the ambiguity??

Without ambiguous and tortured interpretations of the Constitution the FedGov wouldn't have any involvement in education, health care, housing, transportation, policing, drugs, etc... Those are all things near and dear to the hearts of progressives, are they not??
 
Flaw 1: And? And we amend it to keep it relevant in current times.

For example, slavery was OK and the constitution didn't do **** about it, then we thought for a little and said "**** slavery," and lo and behold, the constitution, in accordance with the times, was amended to showcase this.

Flaw 2: ambiguity is subjective, but I can't necessarily disagree with you either, so I'll just leave it at that.

Amendments would be great if we actually did amend it to reflect current times. But we don't.

I'm very much a proponent of a living constitution.
 
You presented nothing but your own skewed words.

Present my posts and show how you refuted them.

ok i am back ....and now we will get right to it, in the following link, haymarket calls my views on the constitution an extremist interpretation because i had stated the government was no longer really a "mixed government"as federalist 40 says it is, and because of that the federal government has expanded and usurped state powers #90 so he sought to use hamilton's Report on Manufactures for his argument ......because it is one of the document from the founders which some on LEFT use to justify government actions.

now as anyone who knows haymarkets's arguments ARE on government, he believes the government's view on the general welfare means government can spend money for the welfare of the people which can encompass things WHICH ARE NOT in the constitution

using Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures haymarket posted the report, which shows in the very last paragraph,........which of course does not follow haymarkets ideas of government and justification for spending on things outside of the constitution under the name of the general welfare.

so in effect.....haymarket ruined his own argument with his own post.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a-12.html
 
Last edited:
Whose interpretation of the constitution? Yours? Mine? Some bloggers? What about a blowhard on TV? I don't care if the government violates any laymen's interpretation of the constitution. I do care if the government violates the federal court system's interpretation of the constitution as that is the only one that really matters.
Whose interpretation? No offense but, definitely not yours.
 
Last edited:
number #2

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/224698-attack-self-defense-22.html

haymarket has before asserted that the founders intention was that firearms be regulated by the federal government...he's cited the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment for his argument.

so in responding to him. i have stated how is it possible for the founders to have intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. since:

the federal government could not regulate anything inside of a state until 1942, when in the case of Wickard v. Filburn ..the federal government was then granted that power by the USSC of regulation of commerce in of states.

Haymarket never responded to this statement of mine....and avoided it by posting gibberish.

also to note........ the USSC stated in the 1873 slaughterhouse case, that the u.s. federal government had NO STATE POLICING POWERS......IE....the power to regulate.


1873 slaughterhouse

The state justified the law under the “police powers” of the state. Those were powers that historically had fallen within the sovereign powers of government. The police-powers concept, which stretched back into English and European history, of course didn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government had no sovereign powers — its powers were limited to those enumerated within the Constitution. But the concept still applied to the states.
 
Last edited:
ok i am back ....and now we will get right to it, in the following link, haymarket calls my views on the constitution an extremist interpretation because i had stated the government was no longer really a "mixed government"as federalist 40 says it is, and because of that the federal government has expanded and usurped state powers #90 so he sought to use hamilton's Report on Manufactures for his argument ......because it is one of the document from the founders which some on LEFT use to justify government actions.

now as anyone who knows haymarkets's arguments ARE on government, he believes the government's view on the general welfare means government can spend money for the welfare of the people which can encompass things WHICH ARE NOT in the constitution

using Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures haymarket posted the report, which shows in the very last paragraph,........which of course does not follow haymarkets ideas of government and justification for spending on things outside of the constitution under the name of the general welfare.

so in effect.....haymarket ruined his own argument with his own post.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a-12.html

I have absolutely no idea what all that unadulterated manure means or what I have to do with it.

CLUE #1 - if you ascribe me a belief - QUOTE ME or go away and keep your opinion to yourself.

CLUE #2 - see clue #1.

I knew you had jack and you just verified that suspicion.
 
number #2

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/224698-attack-self-defense-22.html

haymarket has before asserted that the founders intention was that firearms be regulated by the federal government...he's cited the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment for his argument.

so in responding to him. i have stated how is it possible for the founders to have intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. since:

the federal government could not regulate anything inside of a state until 1942, when in the case of Wickard v. Filburn ..the federal government was then granted that power by the USSC of regulation of commerce in of states.

Haymarket never responded to this statement of mine....and avoided it by posting gibberish.

also to note........ the USSC stated in the 1873 slaughterhouse case, that the u.s. federal government had NO STATE POLICING POWERS......IE....the power to regulate.

QUOTE ME FOR HEAVENS SAKE. If you can't do that - screw it cause I do not care to dignify your crap that comes out of your own mouth.
 
Last edited:
That is only your opinion and not proof of anything.

I knew you would come up with jack.

sorry wrong, as stated the federal government could not regulate commerce inside of states until after Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, and the USSC stated in 1873 the federal government had no state policing powers to regulate inside of states.

so your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to regulate firearms, is REFUTED AS WRONG!
 
quote me for heavens sake. If you can't do that - screw it cause i do not care to dignify your crap that comes out of your own mouth.

no iam going to post the links, i not going to post tons and tons of information...which you will just say .."its irrelevant"...links are provided....
 
sorry wrong, as stated the federal government could not regulate commerce inside of states until after Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, and the USSC stated in 1873 the federal government had no state policing powers to regulate inside of states.

so your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to regulate firearms, is REFUTED AS WRONG!

This is NOT about a debate at the present time. It is about your boast about the PAST.


your post 85

i have always refuted everything you ever say.

So present it. Start with the thread and post and my quote.

If you cannot do that - its just you debating you and not me.
 
no iam going to post the links, i not going to post tons and tons of information...which you will just say .."its irrelevant"...links are provided....

You just admitted you have nothing except your own words which you will reply to. Its not you playing against me in competition. Its you playing with yourself. I have no interest in that.
 
Whose interpretation? No offense but, definitely not yours.

I think the people decide.

Here is an example of freedom of speech.

A person yells fire in a movie theater. Do we need a law or a precedent. No. What we need is a jury of the people to decide if this particular incident was a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Today ever court case becomes a precedent or the need for a new law. Unfortunately no 2 cases are ever exactly the same so each one should be decided on the facts of that particular case not the facts of similar cases.

We have lost the keep it simple that makes for true justice. You will never have justice when one person spends millions on lawyers to interpret the law that has become so complicated no one is sure what the law actually is. Today cases are tied up in court beyond the life time of the people involved.
 
Last edited:
This is NOT about a debate at the present time. It is about your boast about the PAST.


your post 85



So present it. Start with the thread and post and my quote.

If you cannot do that - its just you debating you and not me.

i had stated that the 17th allowed the u.s federal government to expand and usurp state powers, you posted the report, making the assertion that the government was acting on behave of the general welfare, which you have cited many times of the government being able to do things which i have stated are not a general power of the federal government.

i pointed out that you posted and ruined your own argument...because you didn't read properly the report that you had posted......i pointed out your own self imposed refute....therefore i am talking credit for it.
 
You just admitted you have nothing except your own words which you will reply to. Its not you playing against me in competition. Its you playing with yourself. I have no interest in that.

i posted links, anyone is free to go there and read for themselves,.... even you.

more sexual wording from you.......there must be something behind the curtain.
 
"so say you"
Is our Constitution being "violated" ?
Or, Mr OP, in truth, you simply care not for another man's interpretation .
And since this is yet another biased poll, I'll not vote .
 
i had stated that the 17th allowed the u.s federal government to expand and usurp state powers, you posted the report, making the assertion that the government was acting on behave of the general welfare, which you have cited many times of the government being able to do things which i have stated are not a general power of the federal government.

i pointed out that you posted and ruined your own argument...because you didn't read properly the report that you had posted......i pointed out your own self imposed refute....therefore i am talking credit for it.

This is NOT about a debate at the present time. It is about your boast about the PAST.


your post 85

i have always refuted everything you ever say.
So present it. Start with the thread and post and my quote.

If you cannot do that - its just you debating you and not me.
 
I think the people decide.

Here is an example of freedom of speech.

A person yells fire in a movie theater. Do we need a law or a precedent. No. What we need is a jury of the people to decide if this particular incident was a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Today ever court case becomes a precedent or the need for a new law. Unfortunately no 2 cases are ever exactly the same so each one should be decided on the facts of that particular case not the facts of similar cases.

We have lost the keep it simple that makes for true justice. You will never have justice when one person spends millions on lawyers to interpret the law that has become so complicated no one is sure what the law actually is. Today cases are tied up in court beyond the life time of the people involved.
The individual to whom I was responding favored the court system's interpretation of the Constitution. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable, however in our ever-increasing climate of judicial activism, one can no longer trust the objectivity of our "judges."

Case in point was one Supreme Court's "interpretation" of Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution and the phrase "general welfare." Even a simpleton reading Madison's explanation in Federalist #41 of the language used in that article would see the proper interpretation of it, that the enumerated powers given congress by the Constitution are indeed limited to those specifics outlined in Article 8 Section 1. Unfortunately, for us and for the Constitution, judicial activists with power ruled otherwise - in effect ruling in favor of their ideology and world view rather than on the actual words of the Article, let alone on the person's explanation of the wording who actually wrote the Article.

Consequently, and sadly ironically, the very reasons Madison cited for why the wording needed to be what it was, why the argument against the wording was in error, became little more than a prophetic utterance for what has now indeed happened:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
So, what has that activist court done in their interpretation but the very thing Madison argued [successfully] against? It is now, because of that activist court's selfish interpretation, the case that this power HAS BECOME an unlimited commission for our federal government to exercise every power which it alleges is necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

The very thing Madison said couldn't happen - assuming reasonable, rational people knew the meaning of words and had the ability to read - the very thing he said couldn't happen has in fact happened, thanks to a biased, partisan, activist judiciary. And so now all the federal government needs to do is demonstrate that there is a benefit to the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the people to enact virtually whatever legislation it wants - be it the Patriot Act or Obamacare or hundreds of other legislative actions that violate the founder's true intent of Article 8 Section 1 - which today is virtually worthless as a result.
 
i posted links, anyone is free to go there and read for themselves,.... even you.

more sexual wording from you.......there must be something behind the curtain.

Sexual wording!?!?!?!? You really have a combination of puritan and paranoia about you EB. :roll::doh

This is NOT about a debate at the present time. It is about your boast about the PAST.


your post 85

i have always refuted everything you ever say.


So present it. Start with the thread and post and my quote.

If you cannot do that - its just you debating you and not me.

A more accurate boast for you to claim would be "I have unsuccessfully tried to refute some of the things you said".
 
Sexual wording!?!?!?!? You really have a combination of puritan and paranoia about you EB. :roll::doh

This is NOT about a debate at the present time. It is about your boast about the PAST.


your post 85




So present it. Start with the thread and post and my quote.

If you cannot do that - its just you debating you and not me.

A more accurate boast for you to claim would be "I have unsuccessfully tried to refute some of the things you said".

Haymarket refuted!

as stated the federal government could not regulate commerce inside of states until after Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, and the USSC stated in 1873 the federal government had no state policing powers to regulate inside of states.

so your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to regulate firearms, is REFUTED AS WRONG!

1873 slaughterhouse

The state justified the law under the “police powers” of the state. Those were powers that historically had fallen within the sovereign powers of government. The police-powers concept, which stretched back into English and European history, of course didn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government had no sovereign powers — its powers were limited to those enumerated within the Constitution. But the concept still applied to the states.


Haymarket refuted, when he stated the founders intended that the federal government regulate firearms, by using the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment.
 
Haymarket refuted, when he stated the founders intended that the federal government regulate firearms, by using the commerce clause and the 2nd amendment.

Present my quote and thread.
Present your so called refutation.

Until you can do that you have nothing.
 
Present my quote and thread.
Present your so called refutation.

Until you can do that you have nothing.

hay... you have already put forth the founders intended firearms be regulated by the federal government, and you have cited the commerce clause and the 2nd as your case.

i refuted both of those.... because both are incorrect.
 
hay... you have already put forth the founders intended firearms be regulated by the federal government, and you have cited the commerce clause and the 2nd as your case.

i refuted both of those.... because both are incorrect.

You have not even started with step #1 - presenting my position as evidenced by a quote.

you have miserable and totally failed.
 
You have not even started with step #1 - presenting my position as evidenced by a quote.

you have miserable and totally failed.

i have learned not to play your game, which is you calling the shots, because when evidence is gathered and presented , you just call it irrelevant, therefore i said i would link it and i did...you were refuted, and you always are by me and many others.
 
Back
Top Bottom