• 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 support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71
Show that it is. What 'authority' am I basing my argument on?

The interpretation of the SC.


Same reasons the liberals have one of the opposite.
But, that's irrelevant -- regardless of any such tests, the fact remains that judges are not supposed to rule based on their political and personal desires.

The rule based on the merits as they interpret them. Some are strict constructionists and some are loose constructionists.
 
The interpretation of the SC.
When did I do that?

The rule based on the merits as they interpret them...
... which is fine so long as that interpretation is not based on their personal bias. The entire judicial system depends on the lack of bias in its jurists.
 
reefedjib said:
Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
Again:

If a contract gives you a list of powers/rights in a contract, and there is a statement in that contract that powers not listed are otherwise held, there's no way to argue that you have powers/rights not listed in the contract.

Are you talking about the Necessary and Proper Clause?
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.

is this what you mean by "that powers not listed are otherwise held"? It doesn't read that way if you allow implicit powers.
 
Are you talking about the Necessary and Proper Clause......Is this what you mean by "that powers not listed are otherwise held"? It doesn't read that way if you allow implicit powers.
Actually, no, I am talking about the listed powers of Congress (Artilce I Section 8) and the 10th amendment.
 
When did I do that?

That is what you will be depending on.


... which is fine so long as that interpretation is not based on their personal bias. The entire judicial system depends on the lack of bias in its jurists.

some are biased as strict constructionists and some are biased as loose constructionists. They are biased and thinking there is no bias in judicial proceedings at the level of the SC if foolish. They depend on case law and they depend on judgement. Judgement is inherently biased.
 
Actually, no, I am talking about the listed powers of Congress (Artilce I Section 8) and the 10th amendment.

Ok. It will be said that the implicit power of the general welfare clause are delegated. It comes down to the SC.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
That is what you will be depending on.
I think you;re confused, as none of this makes any sense.
Where did I cite the SCotUS to support my point?

They are biased and thinking there is no bias in judicial proceedings at the level of the SC if foolish.
None of this changes the fact that the very core of the judicial system is the presumption that its jurists do not act on bias. If you can ciote a case where the decision was based on the bias of the justices, then the decision is flawed.
 
Ok. It will be said that the implicit power of the general welfare clause are delegated.
Um.... 'delegated' in the context of the 10th means 'expressedly given by the constitution'. This denotes a position of expressed, not implied powers, else, under the 'general welfare clause' argument, the 10th amendment has no meaning.
 
I think you;re confused, as none of this makes any sense.
Where did I cite the SCotUS to support my point?

You didn't, but your point isn't true without their decision.


None of this changes the fact that the very core of the judicial system is the presumption that its jurists do not act on bias. If you can ciote a case where the decision was based on the bias of the justices, then the decision is flawed.

Nonsense. Jurists interpret the law. They are human. They have bias. They have bias when interpreting the law.

What do you call the difference between strict and loose constructionism? I am calling it bias.
 
Um.... 'delegated' in the context of the 10th means 'expressedly given by the constitution'. This denotes a position of expressed, not implied powers, else, under the 'general welfare clause' argument, the 10th amendment has no meaning.

Then why is case law in favor of my interpretation?
 
You didn't, but your point isn't true without their decision.
The part you havent figured out is that a ruling from the SCotUS is an appeal to authority, and as such, does nothing to negate my argument.

That is, if all you have to counter my argument is a SCotUS decision, then my argument stands.

Nonsense.
The nonsense is that you accept the idea that it is acceptable for jurists to rule based on their bias
 
The part you havent figured out is that a ruling from the SCotUS is an appeal to authority, and as such, does nothing to negate my argument.

That is, if all you have to counter my argument is a SCotUS decision, then my argument stands.


The nonsense is that you accept the idea that it is acceptable for jurists to rule based on their bias

Well, I guess we have run out of comments to make about it. I don't think your argument stands. You have to get it in front of the SC to have a decision in your favor. That depends on having jurists of the strict constructionist bias.
 
Well, I guess we have run out of comments to make about it. I don't think your argument stands. You have to get it in front of the SC to have a decision in your favor. That depends on having jurists of the strict constructionist bias.
And, again, this is not a counter to my argument, this is an appeal to authority.
 
And, again, this is not a counter to my argument, this is an appeal to authority.

Well, that's what you are going to need to do in the real world to make it a reality.

I would like to thank you for a great debate on the topic. I've learned a lot.
 
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #5

...the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper


In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that 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." In the preamble, the intent of the constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare, and in this clause the power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common defence, and general welfare." -- And in the last paragraph of the same section there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper.



Is there some reason you people can't cite the entire clause?

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.

That part you left out, you know, the final three quarters of the sentence, you don't think it means anything?

Well, you're wrong.

It means the Congress can only enact laws that allow it to execute the specifically enumerated powers.
 
It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #6


If congressional power is unlimited, explain the existence of Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment.
 
Obviously, you don't know what explicit means either.

If, by that statement, I don't know what you mean by "explicit", you're right.

I use a dictionary.

It's pretty sad when the best argument you can come up with for your position is to argue punctuation marks.

Yes. Every1 nos that spilling and punch you ation have absolutely no impact on whatever it is you wish the words you read say.

Most of us even know that what you wish for isn't important, since what is important is the words as written.

I'm inventing nothing. I'm simply not blinding myself to what's there because it doesn't agree with my personal ideology.

What's not there is the blank check you're insisting on.
 
Back
Top Bottom