I don't really care if it's Constitutional or not!

I am so sick of people saying, for health care or occupational safety or, I don’t know, protecting the environment, defining marriage, whatevs: “You can’t do that, it’s unconstitutional. It’s not a government function.” Or, “It’s not a federal function.”

So freakin’ what? We can’t redefine this stuff?

The restrictions on the federal government in the Bill of Rights were restrictions on the *federal *government, not all government. But in time unrestrained state governments became undesirable, so we got the 14th Amendment. But it goes both ways. The states are now restricted somewhat, but the federal government is expanded in power as well.

In any case, the Constitution is not & never was perfect. It was enormously flawed at the time, it’s still somewhat flawed. It’s not the Law of God. It can be changed.

OK, you say, propose an amendment. Believe me, I would love to. And you know what I would hear most times?

“Oh, no, I don’t think the Constitution needs to be changed for that.” “Well, it’s a neat idea, but I don’t see why you need to change the Constitution.”

IT’S NOT THE FRIGGIN’ BIBLE!!!

The purpose of a constitution is to lay out blueprints for the functions of government and the powers it is granted. The whole reason to have a constitution is because they (in theory) have to abide by it - governments cannot arbitrarily do as they please.

The whole point of having one at all is to avoid the situation you’re describing. It makes no sense to argue that we should have a constitution and then argue that it should mean whatever it is convenient for the government to have it mean at that particular moment.

But I think all of this quibbling is silly. The vast majority of laws passed in the last hundred years or so are unconstitutional - they assume powers that the federal government is not granted. We were supposed to fight (legally or otherwise) the people who passed such laws - but the ship has long sailed on that one. But it amuses me that every time a law seems to violate some well known or well liked part of the constitution, people flip out and say “but that’s unconstitutional!!!” when almost every law passed is.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. You can’t just ignore it when you don’t like it.

Changing Constitutions (in most countries) is really, really REALLY difficult. And it only gets more difficult as populations increase and more people get to vote in the referendums on the change.

You’re a fucking teabagger, aren’t you?

This is the sort of asinine statement I have come to expect from people of limited intelligence who get all worked up about the dern feds, then join the posse comitatus, buy some assualt weapons, and talk about the zionist conspiracy through their 3 teeth.

Fucking “federalist” morons. You’re not even worth debating, because you have some totally wrong and utterly retarded vision of constitutional law that you picked up reading anti-income-tax literature and getting outraged over how the U.S. government is fucking you in that ass when you’re living in a shitty trailer and bouncing between janitor jobs or even better being some socially inept computer nerd who has yet to touch a female that weighs less than they do and rails on about state’s rights yet bitches every time some other state passes a law against one of your little pet causes.

You are dumb and wrong sir.

Well, I might be dumb, but at least I don’t hold some sort of ridiculous view on how a majority of the laws passed in the last 100 years are unconstitutional.

But of course, you argument as phrased is incontrovertible, because obviously anyone who disagrees with you must have been fooled into believing the laws are actually constitutional.

However, if you’d like to put your 2 cents where your mouth is, I’d be glad to personally destroy any inane theories on constitutional law you’d like to put forward.

You sound like GWB.

I don’t see your point here. The 14th Amendment only expanded the power of the federal government to enforce the equal protection clause.

As for the commerce power of the federal government, I think it’s the same now as it was in 1789. It always had the power to regulate interstate commerce. What’s different is the number of things that we know now that can have an effect on interstate commerce. I see no problem in changing the application of the law when the facts change. That is, we know now that health care has a deep affect on interstate commerce that requires federal action, so therefore the Federal government can regulate health care. What do you think SenorBeef?

No, you just hold all sorts of ridiculous assumption about me. I couldn’t even respond to that abortion that you threw at me it was so baseless.

How could this not apply to any argument anyone makes about anything?

Uh - pretty simple, really. There’s no magic keeping the government from operating within its constitutional limitations - the electorate has to be active, educated, and dedicated to preserving the constitution to keep the government working within the intended boundaries. Obviously that hasn’t been the case, so as governments always do, they’ve expanded in size, scope, and power - gradually, bit by bit - until they’re clearly way outside the bounds of a government described in the US constitution.

I think you can make a connection between just about anything and interstate commerce. Similar to the people who point out the “general welfare” wording in article 1 section 8 and then say “well, as long as these laws are intended to improve the general welfare then they’re clearly constitutional!”

These interpretations clearly are not in line with the intent of writing the document - and being willing to interpret them that way invalidates the whole point of a constitution.

Everything you’ve just said is mere wankery. Let’s have some specific examples of unconstitutionality. After all, you have literally tens of thousands of laws to choose from.

So you’re an originalist? That’s your grand awesome theory? That we need to interpret everything according to what George fucking cherry tree Washington would have said about porn and the internet?

Like I said, you’ve got a fucking retarded theory of constitutional law, one not even held by a substantial fraction of people, let alone lawyers, judges, or government officials (mainly because it’s silly).

And here you are arguing about how the commerce clause is overbroad. Let’s hear your argument. It’s overbroad because… the founding fathers meant something different by “commerce among the states”?

Now THAT is a quality pit posting!

While I agree that the federal government has grown in power and scope since the founding, that does not mean that growth violates the Constitution. The current Tenther movement to fight “unconstitutional governmental expansion” has only come to the forefront because of the party of the current administration (funny how I didn’t see many teabaggers during the Bush administration), and not because of the underlying veracity of the issue.

Well, this should be fun.

Actually, it kind of is.

Well, only in the sense that it protects your right to frig.

Naw, those liberal judges totally messed up Lawrence v Frigga.

No it isn’t.
This is.

It’s funny how the side in power never wants to be bothered worrying whether anything is constitutional.

Absolutely – it combined both the key ingredients – salient points and idiotic frothing.