PDA

View Full Version : Query of Right Wing Constitution Lovers



Osborne Russell
05-29-2014, 01:53 PM
You speak frequently but vaguely of "returning to the Constitution." What do you mean?

What do you contend is unconstitutional? How much of that is the responsibility of the Obama administration?

John Smith
05-29-2014, 01:56 PM
Anything Obama does is unconstitutional. Like he's the only president to ever issue executive orders.

BrianY
05-29-2014, 02:15 PM
According to what I've read from these folks, everything not specifically enumerated in the constitution is unconstitutional. So, aside from the military just about every government agency and program is unconstitutional. Goodbye IRS, FDA, OSHA, BLM, BATF, CDC, NHTSA, etc, etc.

Sky Blue
05-29-2014, 02:27 PM
I have learned to beware any far right types discussing constitutional "principles", framer's "intent", various amendments and other elements. Most have no idea what they are talking about and some are literally dangerous. None of them seem to have heard of the "necessary and proper" clause.

I similarly beware any far right think tankers who love to draw parallels with classical history when advocating international interventionism in its various and sundry forms.

Captain Intrepid
05-29-2014, 03:18 PM
Well, according to at least one of them on this forum, the US Supreme Court is unconstitutional when it makes the wrong call.

htom
05-29-2014, 03:42 PM
Their objection is primarily that the "necessary and proper" clause is being used to do things Congress is not explicitly empowered to do.

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper

Oh, wait, there's more!

for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Cribbing from Wikipedia --
According to the Articles of Confederation, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated" (emphasis added). Thus, the Continental Congress had no powers incidental to those which were "expressly delegated" by the Articles of Confederation.[2] In stark contrast, the Necessary and Proper Clause expressly confers incidental powers upon Congress, while no other clauses in the Constitution do so by themselves.[2]

The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution's ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a "dead letter". At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.[3]

It looks to me like Patrick Henry has won. "Bunny inspectors", is what Jerry Pournelle calls them. Others call them other things. -- http://bobmccarty.com/2011/05/25/usda-rabbit-police-stalking-magicians/

Sky Blue
05-29-2014, 04:08 PM
Jefferson opposed inclusion of the clause as well. The Supreme Court ultimately decides (when it chooses to hear a relevant case) whether a law is necessary and proper to effectuate an enumerated federal power.

Often one hears these "constitutionalists" reading out the enumerated powers as if those are the only rationale subjects of congressional purview, which in the most limited sense is accurate, but not terribly useful, when understood in the context of what else might be considered necessary and proper in effectuating an enumerated end.

We have seen this most widely in connection with the commerce power, I think, as virtually any public activity can be seen as having a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Gerarddm
05-29-2014, 04:53 PM
Strict constitutionalists are strictly absurd. As if the Constitution has the certainty of mathematics. Jeesh.

It's a guideline, not a straightjacket.

Phillip Allen
05-29-2014, 04:57 PM
didn't read but the thread title made me think of a late fifties term that went ***er lovers... what a path to go down

Keith Wilson
05-29-2014, 05:00 PM
These folks are effectively saying that Supreme Court decisions they don't agree with are somehow invalid. Now God knows the people on the court are all human and can make mistakes, but dismissing without a thought most of what they've done for the past hundred years or even longer shows considerable hubris.

Peerie Maa
05-29-2014, 06:10 PM
Strict constitutionalists are strictly absurd. As if the Constitution has the certainty of mathematics. Jeesh.

It's a guideline, not a straightjacket.

It looks as though the SCOTUS exists to make it a straight jacket.

ahp
05-29-2014, 06:20 PM
According to the Constitution, if my memory serves me, only Congress has the authority to declare war. When was the last time Congress declared war?

Then there is the War Powers Act, which authorizes the President to send US forces into combat, but only for 60 days without approval by congress. What has Congress approved?

Tom Montgomery
05-29-2014, 06:34 PM
According to what I've read from these folks, everything not specifically enumerated in the constitution is unconstitutional. So, aside from the military just about every government agency and program is unconstitutional. Goodbye IRS, FDA, OSHA, BLM, BATF, CDC, NHTSA, etc, etc.
Correct. :rolleyes:

Sky Blue
05-29-2014, 06:49 PM
As to not confuse and over burden most here why don't we start with one at a time.

What the NSA is doing.

Discuss.

That's a totally different discussion about powers accruing (at least nominally) to the executive, arguably in contravention of an individual's rights under the 4th amendment to be free of warrantless surveillance as to elements of personal existence to which a reasonable expectation of privacy may attach.

So in this case we are speaking of an express limitation of governmental power as to individual liberties under the Bill of Rights, rather than an enumeration of authorized governmental power.

Either way, it is wrong and arguably illegal, and it is telling that more on the Left do not condemn it (though many on this forum have certainly done so).

RonW
05-29-2014, 07:39 PM
According to what I've read from these folks, everything not specifically enumerated in the constitution is unconstitutional. So, aside from the military just about every government agency and program is unconstitutional. Goodbye IRS, FDA, OSHA, BLM, BATF, CDC, NHTSA, etc, etc.


Correct. :rolleyes:

Not Correct .

Well from what I have heard through the grapevine ( since I am not associated with these kind of people of course ) is that the objection is not with government agencies, but with the fact that these un-elected bureaucrat agency heads are writing laws, which that right and duty is reserved for the legislature branch that are elected.

Oh wait, I think I do remember hearing something about the federal reserve being unconstitutional since it is a private corporation, and the congress is to control the monetary supply through the treasury dept. And come to think of it I think I heard that JFK was in the process of returning that duty to the U.S. treasury by actually printing money that stated U.S. treasury note instead of federal reserve note.....

Keith Wilson
05-29-2014, 07:45 PM
Don't believe everything you hear.

John Smith
05-29-2014, 07:53 PM
According to the Constitution, if my memory serves me, only Congress has the authority to declare war. When was the last time Congress declared war?

Then there is the War Powers Act, which authorizes the President to send US forces into combat, but only for 60 days without approval by congress. What has Congress approved?

Interesting how we forget this.

We also forget that phrase in the constitution about the government's responsibility to promote the general welfare. That encompasses things today the founders could not have imagined, like weather satellites.

Arizona Bay
05-29-2014, 07:55 PM
Don't believe everything you hear.

Possibly RonW doesn't know the difference between Laws and regulations???

http://author.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/courseGuides/upload/UnderstandingLaws.pdf

John Smith
05-29-2014, 07:55 PM
That's a totally different discussion about powers accruing (at least nominally) to the executive, arguably in contravention of an individual's rights under the 4th amendment to be free of warrantless surveillance as to elements of personal existence to which a reasonable expectation of privacy may attach.

So in this case we are speaking of an express limitation of governmental power as to individual liberties under the Bill of Rights, rather than an enumeration of authorized governmental power.

Either way, it is wrong and arguably illegal, and it is telling that more on the Left do not condemn it (though many on this forum have certainly done so).
In that particular arena I have asked, and not gotten an answer, exactly what powers are you willing to give the government if you expect them to keep us safe? No one seems to want to address that.

John Smith
05-29-2014, 07:56 PM
Not Correct .

Well from what I have heard through the grapevine ( since I am not associated with these kind of people of course ) is that the objection is not with government agencies, but with the fact that these un-elected bureaucrat agency heads are writing laws, which that right and duty is reserved for the legislature branch that are elected.

Oh wait, I think I do remember hearing something about the federal reserve being unconstitutional since it is a private corporation, and the congress is to control the monetary supply through the treasury dept. And come to think of it I think I heard that JFK was in the process of returning that duty to the U.S. treasury by actually printing money that stated U.S. treasury note instead of federal reserve note.....

ALEC is writing the laws.

RonW
05-29-2014, 08:00 PM
ALEC is writing the laws.

you mean this ----http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

RonW
05-29-2014, 08:06 PM
Possibly RonW doesn't know the difference between Laws and regulations???

http://author.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/courseGuides/upload/UnderstandingLaws.pdf

Possibly so, but I have heard these regulations carry fines and penalties. gee what a pain in the butt..

Sky Blue
05-29-2014, 08:06 PM
In that particular arena I have asked, and not gotten an answer, exactly what powers are you willing to give the government if you expect them to keep us safe? No one seems to want to address that.

I am comfortable with pre-9/11 investigative and procedural powers (no Patriot Act), no secret courts, civilian audit of the processes and procedures, and a tightening up of the information sharing between entities charged with our security. Intrusive surveillance should require a warrant based on probable cause. If more is needed, then laws should be implemented after committee consideration and public vetting (i.e., such laws are not implemented secretly).

A significantly less aggressive foreign policy might help (the current administration is implementing this, if somewhat sloppily), and better relations with allies of shared security interest might help as well.

Captain Intrepid
05-29-2014, 08:12 PM
Possibly RonW doesn't know the difference between Laws and regulations???

http://author.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/courseGuides/upload/UnderstandingLaws.pdf

Goodness, could you imagine if every governmental agency had to go to congress every time it needed to modify a regulation? You may as well have an aircraft carrier where the captain is consulted every time an oiler wants to tighten a bolt.

hokiefan
05-29-2014, 08:21 PM
Not Correct .

Well from what I have heard through the grapevine ( since I am not associated with these kind of people of course ) is that the objection is not with government agencies, but with the fact that these un-elected bureaucrat agency heads are writing laws, which that right and duty is reserved for the legislature branch that are elected.

Oh wait, I think I do remember hearing something about the federal reserve being unconstitutional since it is a private corporation, and the congress is to control the monetary supply through the treasury dept. And come to think of it I think I heard that JFK was in the process of returning that duty to the U.S. treasury by actually printing money that stated U.S. treasury note instead of federal reserve note.....

When a government agency is created by an act of Congress, lets use OHSA as an example, they are given a mission by the act that created them. Part of that mission is to write the regulations that carry out the rest of the mission. Congress didn't write the definition of what makes a safe stairway in an industrial building, they gave OSHA the mission and the authority to ensure that stairway is safe to walk on. To carry that out OSHA has to write the regulations on what a safe stairway entails. So OSHA isn't writing laws, they are writing regulations called for by the law. That's not really so hard to follow is it?

Cheers,

Bobby

Captain Intrepid
05-29-2014, 08:35 PM
Lets use a real world example. It's a Canadian law, but the principles are the same in every country.

Under Canada's implementation of MARPOL, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the person authorized to board vessels and determine if they are contravening regulations. Does the Cabinet Minister drop the business of Parliament, get out their floater suit, and spend all their time flying from coast to coast, boarding merchant ships and inspecting them for magic pipes and fudged paperwork? Of course not! Powers are delegated downwards. It's the only way a government can operate for anything larger than say, a small village. The USA is not a small village.

Nicholas Carey
05-29-2014, 09:03 PM
Not Correct .

Well from what I have heard through the grapevine ( since I am not associated with these kind of people of course ) is that the objection is not with government agencies, but with the fact that these un-elected bureaucrat agency heads are writing laws, which that right and duty is reserved for the legislature branch that are elected.

Oh wait, I think I do remember hearing something about the federal reserve being unconstitutional since it is a private corporation, and the congress is to control the monetary supply through the treasury dept. And come to think of it I think I heard that JFK was in the process of returning that duty to the U.S. treasury by actually printing money that stated U.S. treasury note instead of federal reserve note.....


The Executive branch can't write implementing regulations (term of art) unless the Congress so enables it in the legislation to which the regulations pertain.

As far as the Federal Reserve goes, art. I 8 delegates to the Congress the exclusive, enumerated power to "To coin money [and]regulate the value thereof (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8)". It did that by creating the Federal Reserve Bank and assigning it the duty to do just that. No different that the President delegating his enumerated powers to subordinates rather than doing it all hisself. The constitutionality isn't in question, and while you might have an issue with how it chose to do that, that is a political, not a constitutional issue: take it up with the Congress of the United States, but you can't whine that the Federal Reserve is somehow unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve exists solely at the behest of the Congress. The Congress could dissolve it at any time, at the simple...passage of a Bill.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-29-2014, 09:06 PM
The weird thing about the USA is they seem absolutely fixated on their original constitution, rather than making progressive changes to social policy as times change. The US constitution was drafted to the best of the ability of the leaders of the day, trying to institute some kind of order into a post revolutionary new nation.

Documents like this are meant to change as societies progress. Most other nations have understood that for some time. The United States, not so much, subsequently a message about guns following a revolutionary war has morphed into a major cause of death for it's own citizens.

Nicholas Carey
05-29-2014, 09:15 PM
Their objection is primarily that the "necessary and proper" clause is being used to do things Congress is not explicitly empowered to do.



Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper



Oh, wait, there's more!



for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Cribbing from Wikipedia --



It looks to me like Patrick Henry has won. "Bunny inspectors", is what Jerry Pournelle calls them. Others call them other things. -- http://bobmccarty.com/2011/05/25/usda-rabbit-police-stalking-magicians/


Actually the Clause that has been stretched passed its elastic limit is the art. I 8 "interstate commerce clause" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8), "[i]The Congress shall have power…To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;".

That is the basis of pretty much everything the RWWJs dislike about the modern State. For example, the federal government's making the growing of marijuana for personal use a federal offense is based on that, despite the fact that there is no legal commerce in marijuana by [interstate or otherwise], by statute, and the MJ in question, by definition, never crosses a state line. It would be one thing if the transport was prohibited, but that is not the case.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

htom
05-29-2014, 09:38 PM
The weird thing about the USA is they seem absolutely fixated on their original constitution, rather than making progressive changes to social policy as times change. The US constitution was drafted to the best of the ability of the leaders of the day, trying to institute some kind of order into a post revolutionary new nation.

Documents like this are meant to change as societies progress. Most other nations have understood that for some time. The United States, not so much, subsequently a message about guns following a revolutionary war has morphed into a major cause of death for it's own citizens.

We have changed ours. Slowly and not frequently. Part of the complaint is that things seem to be being done as if changes in the Constitution have been made, when they have not even been proposed as such (and it does not require a great deal of paranoia to recognize that if you think a change won't get through Congress and the States, it's better left unproposed!)

hokiefan
05-30-2014, 12:38 AM
Except that, your OHSA, has designed, painted, signed, guarded, restricted, and shut down for inspection to the point that they are useless.

Having spent 30 years in the chemical industry I can tell you this is a load of horse hockey. In those 30 years I have seen one OSHA inspector, and that inspection was prompted by a fatality. There are numerous issues that still need better regulation, among them combustible dust. There was a major fire and explosion in Savannah 6 years ago, killing 14 people. The issue was combustible sugar dust. Coming out of that, the Chemical Safety Board recommended a comprehensive combustible dust standard, which is not close to happening. OSHA doesn't have near the inspection manpower it needs to effectively regulate industry.


Cheers,

Bobby

Peerie Maa
05-30-2014, 05:13 AM
The preservation of our country is insured by the fact that the defense of our country can be defended by our armed citizens. On the other hand, your country has relegated its defense to the U.S.What a load of tosh. If you really think that some untrained rabble can defend your country with privately purchased guns of all descriptions, you are on another planet.

John Smith
05-30-2014, 06:13 AM
I am comfortable with pre-9/11 investigative and procedural powers (no Patriot Act), no secret courts, civilian audit of the processes and procedures, and a tightening up of the information sharing between entities charged with our security. Intrusive surveillance should require a warrant based on probable cause. If more is needed, then laws should be implemented after committee consideration and public vetting (i.e., such laws are not implemented secretly).

A significantly less aggressive foreign policy might help (the current administration is implementing this, if somewhat sloppily), and better relations with allies of shared security interest might help as well.

That is a fascinating answer. At first I agreed with it. After some thought, however, I'm not sure that we know what was in place before 9/11.

After 9/11 came a lot of garbage. We had color coded warning levels. We increased the show of security at airports. There were considerable warnings of 9/11 before the attack, which were ignored.

I'm not sure that a lot of the stuff people are complaining about was not in place before 9/11. I remember FISA warrants were in place, and the famous memo from Jaimie Gorelack (not at all sure of the spelling) which reminded all that a FISA warrant would not hold up in a criminal court, but was misconstrued, on purpose I think, as having built a wall between the CIA and the FBI.

John Smith
05-30-2014, 06:14 AM
When a government agency is created by an act of Congress, lets use OHSA as an example, they are given a mission by the act that created them. Part of that mission is to write the regulations that carry out the rest of the mission. Congress didn't write the definition of what makes a safe stairway in an industrial building, they gave OSHA the mission and the authority to ensure that stairway is safe to walk on. To carry that out OSHA has to write the regulations on what a safe stairway entails. So OSHA isn't writing laws, they are writing regulations called for by the law. That's not really so hard to follow is it?

Cheers,

Bobby

Excellent!

John Smith
05-30-2014, 06:15 AM
The Constitution is a lot like the Bible (or any other religious tome). It means what you want it to mean and not what others want it to mean.

It means what the Supreme Court at the time says it means.

John Smith
05-30-2014, 06:18 AM
The weird thing about the USA is they seem absolutely fixated on their original constitution, rather than making progressive changes to social policy as times change. The US constitution was drafted to the best of the ability of the leaders of the day, trying to institute some kind of order into a post revolutionary new nation.

Documents like this are meant to change as societies progress. Most other nations have understood that for some time. The United States, not so much, subsequently a message about guns following a revolutionary war has morphed into a major cause of death for it's own citizens.

Our constitution has been amended. That's how women got to vote.

A big problem is that proposed amendments in recent years have been designed to restrict individual rights, rather than expand then. Immediate examples that come to mind would be gay marriage and flag burning.

John Smith
05-30-2014, 06:20 AM
Having spent 30 years in the chemical industry I can tell you this is a load of horse hockey. In those 30 years I have seen one OSHA inspector, and that inspection was prompted by a fatality. There are numerous issues that still need better regulation, among them combustible dust. There was a major fire and explosion in Savannah 6 years ago, killing 14 people. The issue was combustible sugar dust. Coming out of that, the Chemical Safety Board recommended a comprehensive combustible dust standard, which is not close to happening. OSHA doesn't have near the inspection manpower it needs to effectively regulate industry.


Cheers,

Bobby

A government, like everything else, needs proper funding to do its jobs properly.

Captain Intrepid
05-30-2014, 07:54 AM
What a load of tosh. If you really think that some untrained rabble can defend your country with privately purchased guns of all descriptions, you are on another planet.

It is a curious delusion, eh? Stems, I think from the idea that if their revolutionary forefathers could do it, so could they. Of course, they ignore the intervening 240 years, and slight advances in military arms vs civilian arms during that time.

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:34 PM
Their objection is primarily that the "necessary and proper" clause is being used to do things Congress is not explicitly empowered to do.

I've never heard them make that objection. Here's their chance.

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:36 PM
As to not confuse and over burden most here why don't we start with one at a time.

What the NSA is doing.

Discuss.

How does it violate the Constitution? If it were to end, would you stop saying your primary motivation was to "return to the Constitution"?

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:38 PM
According to the Constitution, if my memory serves me, only Congress has the authority to declare war. When was the last time Congress declared war?

Then there is the War Powers Act, which authorizes the President to send US forces into combat, but only for 60 days without approval by congress. What has Congress approved?

They had their chance to call the Chimp Squad on it, so that can't be it.

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:39 PM
Not Correct .

Well from what I have heard through the grapevine ( since I am not associated with these kind of people of course ) is that the objection is not with government agencies, but with the fact that these un-elected bureaucrat agency heads are writing laws, which that right and duty is reserved for the legislature branch that are elected.

Oh wait, I think I do remember hearing something about the federal reserve being unconstitutional since it is a private corporation, and the congress is to control the monetary supply through the treasury dept. And come to think of it I think I heard that JFK was in the process of returning that duty to the U.S. treasury by actually printing money that stated U.S. treasury note instead of federal reserve note.....

So you really don't know if anything unconstitutional is going on.

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:44 PM
The Constitution is a lot like the Bible (or any other religious tome).

Not religious.



It means what you want it to mean and not what others want it to mean.

At a rather abstract level that's true. I wouldn't rely on it to get out of paying your income tax.

Osborne Russell
05-30-2014, 02:47 PM
Except that, your OHSA, has designed, painted, signed, guarded, restricted, and shut down for inspection to the point that they are useless.

Let's suppose that's all true. What's unconstitutional about it?

Captain Intrepid
05-30-2014, 03:02 PM
Not religious.

It's certainly treated in a religious manner. Too many times I've seen discussions ended by "The constitution says so." Just look at gun control threads. Far more time is wasted on parsing the exact words of the constitution in different ways rather than talking about if they are good words to begin with!

Keith Wilson
05-30-2014, 03:13 PM
It's a fairly common sentiment on the religious wing of the far right, and sometimes even those not that far right, the that US Constitution was divinely inspired. The president of the LDS church said as much in 1988 (link here - "Our Divine Constitution (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/our-divine-constitution?lang=eng)")

Osborne Russell
06-01-2014, 08:50 AM
It's certainly treated in a religious manner.

That's true but the people who do it are ignorant.


Too many times I've seen discussions ended by "The constitution says so." Just look at gun control threads. Far more time is wasted on parsing the exact words of the constitution in different ways rather than talking about if they are good words to begin with!

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, there's no avoiding parsing the exact words, when it comes to implementing it. But I agree, it's not revealed truth from the supernatural realm.

Seems odd to have to say it.

RonW
06-01-2014, 10:34 AM
It's a fairly common sentiment on the religious wing of the far right, and sometimes even those not that far right, the that US Constitution was divinely inspired. The president of the LDS church said as much in 1988 (link here - "Our Divine Constitution (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/our-divine-constitution?lang=eng)")

You mean the Mormons ??? golly gee so who is mormon, well off the top of my head glen beck converted due to the fact his wife is one, oh and let's not forget mitt romney,

and who else.......OH yea dirty dingy hairy the reed..........big time ......

Hey didn't the U.S. army declare war on the mormons ??

So dirty hairy is a far right wing religious.........well what ever...............

Osborne Russell
06-02-2014, 11:55 AM
It's as I suspected. You people can't name a single federal activity you believe to be unconstitutional, which means that when you speak of "returning to the constitution" you literally do not know what you are talking about. It's not that you have a weak hand -- you don't have any cards at all.