[paraclete]

Yeah Tal he thinks money talks, only problem is he doesn't think B/S walks

[TUT317]

Of course they did and recognized the danger of the Leviatan . I assure you they read Hobbes. This is what they rebelled against.

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.

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

[paraclete]

Tut we would like to add to the debate not detract from it

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

Tom please forget this original intent debate, I think I have already shown you that this is at least passee

[tomder55]

No it is not.. it is a genuine philosophical difference about how the nation should work .

[speechlesstx]

So you are in favour of Presidential decree then , get more done and no argy bargy

No that would be our clueless Transportation Secretary who envies China.

“The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision."

[paraclete]

You know speech I think he is right you could do with less bureaucrats

[tomder55]

Steve , Clete admires the Chinese model too.

[paraclete]

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

[TUT317]

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.

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

[tomder55]

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.

[TUT317]

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'.

btw ...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 ofthe 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 judical fiat.

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

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

Don't give ex any ideas.

[paraclete]

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 .

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 law

[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.

[TUT317]

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 consitutional 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 decison,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 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.

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

[paraclete]

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 consitutional 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 decison,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 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.

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.

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