Yeah Tal he thinks money talks, only problem is he doesn't think B/S walks
|
Yeah Tal he thinks money talks, only problem is he doesn't think B/S walks
As far as Article 1. Sec 8. is concerned it might be a case of everyone knowing what they mean but not saying what they meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This leaves us open to a narrow or broad interpretation. Take you pick, the possibilities are almost endless.
As I argued earlier, 'general welfare of the United States' is the problem. If we desire we can interpret ,'the United States' as referring to the people of the United States. This is because it becomes impossible to know if interpreting,'the United States' as people adds or detracts from the essential meaning of the concept. The reason is because no one knows what the essential meaning of that concept actually is.
On this basis it becomes impossible to know if interpreting it in this way perverts its meaning. It also leads to to conclude that we can interpret it this way (or a variety of other ways) because we have no evidence that it does.
Tut
Tut we would like to add to the debate not detract from it
Tut ,the founders were precise. When I have time I'll dig up the ratification debates and the issues of language... including which punctuation was the correct one to use in Art 1 Sec 8.
Tom please forget this original intent debate, I think I have already shown you that this is at least passee
No it is not.. it is a genuine philosophical difference about how the nation should work .
No that would be our clueless Transportation Secretary who envies China.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Quote:
“The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision."
You know speech I think he is right you could do with less bureaucrats
Steve , Clete admires the Chinese model too.
No Tom I wouldn't say admire but they do have a certain ability to stimulate their economy and keep people working and out of the dole ques, of course, you don't need any potemkin villages, having a glut of 40 million houses at the moment, but I hear you could do with some new bridges and perhaps a very fast train or two. It seems you could do with some more utility workers and people to do storm cleanup
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
I am not sure that would solve the problem. Their understanding of how language works would be different to ours. I am not saying it is a false understanding, just different. In exactly the same way their understanding of some words also differed in some cases in light of modern meanings (not many, but some).
There is no precise language that we can draw on when it comes to these matters. As I said so many times before language is a labyrinth. In terms of the modern world there are many different theories as to how language works. None of these theories portrays language as something we can use in a precise fashion.
Language is the possibility of the things we can do with words; there are many possibilities open to us. At the moment we don't have a language that accurately mirrors the world. We find our way around the labyrinth the best we can. Obviously some do it better than others, but no one is the master of language.
Tut
This is not a literary exercise . It is 'what does a legal document mean ? ' If the wording of the document doesn't mean what it's authors intended then it is out dated and needs revision. The good thing is that the authors gave us a means of change that does not include a Chief Justice doing his best Humpty Dumpty impersonation calling a 'penalty 'a 'tax'.
By the way... it was during the framing of the Constitution that the proper use of punctuation
Became an issue .Gouverneur Morris, a member of the committee of style that
Drafted the Constitution, tried to use a semicolon to change the intended meaning of Article I, Section 8 “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.. . ”
The consensus at the convention was that this sentence addressed
The Congress's powers of taxation but did not grant additional legislative powers.
Morris, however, wished for the government to have expansive powers. When he drafted this section, he used a semicolon where today we have a comma. Morris's version of the section read: “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.. . ”
Had not another member of the convention noticed this punctuation ploy, the section
Would have granted massive powers to Congress to legislate for the “general Welfare.”
Since then ,all the power grabs in the name of the general welfare has been Constitutional only because of judicial fiat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I am not implementing a punctuation ploy. We don't need punctuation changed to interpret 'general welfare' to mean the people. The words themselves leave open this possibility.
What the document means actually is a literary exercise. Isn't it? How else do we know what it means. If you are saying that it means what the other historical documents point out then yes I would agree with that.
If the 'general welfare of the United states' was left out of that particular section then this probably would tighten up the meaning.
The problem with providing the opportunity to change it creates a political divide. Do we want a narrow or a broad definition? What ever way is decided it will forever be seen as a political amendment. That is, favoring one side of politics over the other.
Tut
Tom wants to debate whether a penalty is a tax, an impost or indeed why isn't we have debated whether it is a fee, but you see Tom although the CJ didn't say it the meaning of the word impost is very open so even if it is not a tax it is caught within the meaning of this clause. So much for the precision of the language Tom. You need to get over it, the government of the day has decided upon a particular course of action, when another government has a clear mandate you can change it
Then the US government is not the limited government restrained by defined enumerated powers . May as well use the Constitution as rolling papers and get high as it gets burned .
Don't give ex any ideas.
Tom if you President signs piece of legislation into Law in a manner allowed in the Constitution and the Court has not said it is unconstitutional for him to do so, then perhaps your intrepretation could do with some modification. When you have elected a different government with a clear mandate they can change the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No you don't understand.. a court decision establishes stare decisis ;and that in turn is like a snowball rolling down hill.Soon laws that no one would've ever considered constitutional are suddenly justified under precedent.
As an example; there is a clause in the 5th amendment that is the Eminent Domain clause.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
That would seem to be straight forward. Public use is for roads ,etc. But in the Kelo decision,the court decided to expand that clause so that private property could be taken from the owner for a private interest ;the public interest being advanced by the private interest (waterfront condos ).
Well now there is a movement afoot in the US to seize mortgages from investors ,at what the government deems is a fair compensation ;and then using a private financial institution ,restructuring the mortgage for the homeower (for a fee of course ) . Who had to absorb the loss ? The investor does . And this is being done justified under the expanded interpretation of the Eminent Domain clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
I blame the information society we live in for that problem. People are very good at exploiting niches. As soon as enough people realize the potential of an idea it is not long before everyone knows about it. It suddenly becomes the way to do things. Hence the snowball effect.
The same niches or opportunities existed in the past- as they exist now. The big difference being they are no longer difficult to refine and communicate.
Tut
The operative words here are just compensation. If the value of the asset being acquired has devalued then just compensation means market value. You know the market Tom it's mechanism you have great faith in. It is a bit of a stretch to call it eminent domain but the public interest is in maintaing some sort of stability in the market. I agree with you that private property should not be acquired so that any individual or corporation should profit, but governments have a long history of nationalising assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I am aware of precident Tom it is the basis upon which all common law has advanced and I expect that as the court did not strike down the Obamacare legislation as unconstitutional because Obama signed into law a piece of legislation not actually agreed to that there was sufficient precident for this, and now your imperium has been established whereby the President (read emperor) and his cabinet (read proconsuls) are now capable of ruling by decree. Obama took you to war in Libya without benefit of congress and I expect they will become increasingly irrevelant, which of course, is the result of their own actions
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Is it possible that someone during the ratification process someone wanted a few words added to leave open the possibility that congress may want to pass laws that may well turn our to be necessary in the future but find themselves limited by the ones enumerated? You know something like a safety valve in case of unusual circumstances.
Wouldn't that make sense? I don't know-you know more about the history than I do.
You seem to see many things as one or the other; no in between. You don't think you are creating a false dilemma for yourself?
Tut
Tut Tom is very good at painting himself into a corner. To Tom the Congress holds the power and no one else is allowed exercise any power they have not rubber stamped. This is the righeous cause of the opposition you and I are both very familiar with the concept. They shall not pass. It is a shame the US parliament is bicameral because the house has taken on that righteous mantle and yet the Senate has the ability to make decisions too. Tom there is a mechanism where impasses can be resolved, respect it.
The Senate was seriously diluted as a useful institution with the passage of the 17th Amendment .
So what you are saying is original intent went out the window
No original intent was maintained by changing the Constitution the proper way. I think it was a better system before the change because the Senate was designed to be the States representatives . But the people decided otherwise.
17th Amendment legal definition of 17th Amendment. 17th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
The people tweaked the system. What? You thought the ability to fire people is exclusive to the elite power brokers and party bosses? I think that was the original intent of the founders, if enough people want change there is a process to change.
I think they recognized that the constitution, and the laws would have to be able to adjust to changing circumstances, and situations so they built in a mechanism to grow. They KNEW the nation was going to grow.
Again ;I may not agree with the amendment (I think it seriously eroded the idea of federalism . ). Your link hit the nail on the head "This successful struggle marked a major victory for progressivism"
But at least it was an amendment... not some judges interpretation of what 'we the people mean' or 'general welfare' .
Now if we can just get the money out of politics, which should be the next constitutional challenge through the amendment process. There is nothing more disgusting to me than buying politicians to unfairly grease the wheels of industry, by allowing them to write legislature and regulate themselves, against the interest of the welfare and safety of the public.
As specific instances of this pollution by the energy sector that has no responsibility to correct their own mistakes. BP, Exxon, and others are well documented as having no scientific, or moral will to safeguard the people who are harmed by their lack of preventing their profits over people business approach.
Tar sand spill - Bing News
July 11 News: $800 Million Tar Sands Oil Spill In Michigan Blamed On Corporate Neglect And 'Weak Federal Regulations' | ThinkProgress
Have we forgotten BP in the gulf already? Or the Virginia miners? As Speech likes to say "its a good thing nobody got killed!".
You think unelected Senators are preferrable to those who have to face the ballot box, it is a great pity you didn't extend this process to making cabinet members face the ballot box too. What makes you think that a Senator who is elected to represent a state by electors in that state is less able that the crony selected by members of state legislatures. It seems the people saw through the original intent of entrenching politiciansQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Senate was essential as constructed at the founding . It was designed so the country could retain it's federal character. Unlike the peoples House ,which has proportional representation ;the Senate would treat all States as equal . You think that it is not democratic because it required that Senators were selected by the Legislatures of the States .But those Legislatures were all elected by the people . So no... I don't think the change made it more representative of the people.What the change did do was to move the country away from it's federalist roots towards the goal of progressives ;more central control.
What the HELL is a federal character!? Seems more a collusion between elected elite,and appointed elites to me. Good thing those progressives saw it for what it was, crony capitalism!
Settled, done, move on, nothing to see here!
If you want to repeal something, repeal the electoral college! One vote, one outcome!
Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp. They want to repeal the 17th amendment and take you back to eighteenth century thinking. Will they also abolish other advances such as civil rights? Democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence
Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.
YupQuote:
Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp.
And as a bonus ,the 16th amendment .Quote:
They want to repeal the 17th amendment
That is exactly my point. The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .Quote:
democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence
You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created . Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .
Tom the days of cracker barrel politics are over, nothing gets done at a local level, that is why you have state governments and a federal government, because there is a bigger picture here. Yes you have to address local issues but you also have to address national issues. The way democracy works is you have elections, not appointments and you hold politicians accountable in the ballot box. I know that some of your states didn't ratify the 17th amendment, they remain stuck in the eighteenth century along with you, unwilling to change and listen to the voice of the people and please don't confuse me with Tal, not because he isn't a good guy but because you need to get it together
Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.
Why should I be uncomfortable with history? We learn from the past for a better future as we evolve, and do better. When we don't, we get stuck in the past, and don't adjust to changing circumstances, concerns, and needs.
The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .
Elections will make them listen if we stop the outside money from subverting the system at all levels of government.
You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created .
Do you mean the government, of and by the people, or the rich big fat job creators that suck all the wealth from the global economy, that you worship, and protect?
Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .
And its we the people that will deal with it. With or without those that holler and complain. Unlike conservatives who long for the good old days because these are so lousy, progressives are always ready to get the work done that needs to be done, so we can keep it moving.
Don't worry it will help you too! Today, and tomorrow
And there is the crux of the progressive attitude - "don't worry about it," because they know better than we what's good for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's what it all boils down to. That's why they want conservatives silenced, why they want a return to the "fairness doctrine," why they object to corporations having a say in matters that affect them and on and on and on. If only those idiots would shut and get out of the way of "progress."
Sorry buddy, I will not go quietly and surrender my freedom while my country goes to a progressive/socialist hell.
Speech if the content of a video in another thread is accurate then I would say your country is teetering on the edge of a conservative/fascist hell, internal searches being conducted for "illegal" aliens, non citizens in the best traditions of Europe of the nineteen thirtiesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nice hyperbole.. taking lessons from Ex ? I'll tell you that being stopped entering a tunnel going into Manhattan on a very busy congested rush hour highway is much more of an inconvenience than being stopped on a low traffic desert highway. But there is a resonable purpose to both that doesn't either violate the Constitution ,or put us on a slippery slope to fascism .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .
There was nothing progressive about National Socialist Germany, it was hard core right wing and the enemy of Communist Russia, a somewhat progressive socialist state. You see when conservatives move to the far right they seek to restrict and control and one of the features is subjection of minority populationsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
With all your political and historical savvy, you have NO idea that right wingerism verges on fascism?? Wow! The American right wing is even more dangerous than I though.. But, it does clear up some stuff, though.. You guys think the further right you go brings you closer to God, instead of the forces of evil...
I'm aghast.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:33 AM. |