• 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!

The Founders' Activist Government

James972 said:
actually it is you who thinks repealing the 17th would stop state legislatures from being socialist.
Click to expand...

thats not what i said, so i will repeat it for you.

i said by repealing the 17th, it would make the senate a non collective body, and they would not pass legislation from the house which is collective.
 
Master PO said:
wrong!...
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

This constitution considers the people of the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original compact, it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent with it. This not only results from its nature, but is expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, "in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers, among these is the power "to make all laws which are 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." It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion: No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them; and it will not be difficult to shew that the same authority is expressly given which is supposed to be implied in the forgoing paragraphs.

Brutus V
Click to expand...
 
James972 said:
If that was true there would be no need for the Constitution it could just say to role of the govt is take care of the general welfare.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Reasonable persons can have good faith disagreements about what constitutes the general welfare and how to achieve it. The Constitution provides some guidance.

James972 said:
Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
Click to expand...

We have little evidence to support that construction. From the beginning, Congress did almost whatever it wanted and hardly anyone objected to the principle.
 
Thrilla said:
... you do understand the 10th amendment acts in direct contravention to your argument that the federal government is unlimited in it's power, yes?...
Click to expand...

No.

That's just not so. The People are sovereign. They can order their creature, the United States, to do whatever they want it do. From that perspective, the federal government does, in fact, have unlimited power.
 
Master PO said:
you produce a source for this, so it can be put into context.

the founders are clear on the issue of the welfare cause and i have already posted that you are wrong, from Madison and Jefferson, hamiltons own words.
Click to expand...

Read the Antifederalist paper Brutus V. It's easy to find.
 
Joe Steel said:
Read the Antifederalist paper Brutus V. It's easy to find.
Click to expand...

:lamo, so you are going to use the ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS TO TRY TO PROVE YOUR POINT?

i knew who Brutus was when i saw you post, but i wanted to see if you were foolish enough to continue
 
Joe Steel said:
No.

That's just not so. The People are sovereign. They can order their creature, the United States, to do whatever they want it do. From that perspective, the federal government does, in fact, have unlimited power.
Click to expand...
:lamo


if you had read the constitution , you would know the constitution itself states the federal government does not have power over things like the states and rights of the people.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
nowhere is the general welfare clause ( whether in the preamble or Article 1) interpreted to be an unlimited power

..same..
Click to expand...

Are there any UNLIMITED POWERS given to government in our Constitution?
 
Master PO said:
:lamo


if you had read the constitution , you would know the constitution itself states the federal government does not have power over things like the states and rights of the people.
Click to expand...

marxists think that the government has unlimited powers
 
James972 said:
of course that means nothing whatsoever
Click to expand...

Its even worse when you realize some state legislators could be bought and sold like two dollar hookers on a Saturday night in a cowtown during round-up. The fiction that they did not make deals is so falling down hilarious that it boggles the mind.

The Progressives - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Corruption and Reform

During the early years of the new century, those individuals who tried to approach government with proposals to improve the lot of factory workers, farmers and small businessmen had little success. Especially at the local and state levels of government, lawmakers were often controlled by political machines and special interest groups. At this time, local and state government reached a low point in American history. Greed, corruption, and outright bribery were common among many politicians.

A New York Times editorial of July 3, 1911, complained that "Respectable and well-meaning men all over the State and especially in this city, are going about saying: 'What is the use? You only replace one lot of rascals by another, generally worse."' Across the country in California, the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the state legislature and dictated how the state should be run. This was always to the benefit of the railroad. In many states at this time, railroads and other large corporations saw to it that legislatures did nothing to interfere with their profits, power and privilege.

By the early 1900's, reform minded individuals and groups spoke out increasingly against the "robber barons," as the big bankers, industrialists and railroad men were called. Farm, labor, and small business groups along with ministers and journalists charged that the enormous wealth of big business was secured by exploiting hardworking Americans. Political cartoonists portrayed big corporations like the Southern Pacific Railroad as grasping octopuses. A particular target of the reformers were city and state governments that often cooperated or were regularly paid off by the big business interests.
Click to expand...

yeah- they didn't make deals.... :doh:roll::lamo
 
Last edited:
Joe Steel said:
No.

That's just not so. The People are sovereign. They can order their creature, the United States, to do whatever they want it do. From that perspective, the federal government does, in fact, have unlimited power.
Click to expand...

if the people are sovereign we would not need a Constitution that specifically divides power up among several parties. The people are a mob and must be carefully controlled like any group. Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!
 
Joe Steel said:
No.

That's just not so. The People are sovereign. They can order their creature, the United States, to do whatever they want it do. From that perspective, the federal government does, in fact, have unlimited power.
Click to expand...

yeah, sorry... no.

find a new argument, you're flailing at this one.
 
Thrilla said:
no....
Click to expand...

so why then was it important for you to state this as some sort of revelation of truth that we did not realize?

Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
nowhere is the general welfare clause ( whether in the preamble or Article 1) interpreted to be an unlimited power
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom