And also idiotic points and salient frothing
It is all things to all people.
If if the pit to you is about making unfounded and incorrect assumptions about people and then going ballistic attacking the straw man they just created, then yeah, that was quality.
But he is utterly wrong. I am not only not a tea bagger, and I even pitted them myself recently. I am not a conspiracy theorist - quite the opposite, since I am an ardent skeptic. I am not dumb. I did not pick up my views through some anti-tax website but rather a consistent philosophy that I’ve developed over my adult life after analysis and introspection. I do not “rail on about states rights yet bitch every time some other state passes a law against one of my pet causes”. And the other stuff isn’t even worthy of being responded to. His post is thoroughly wrong throughout.
If this is quality to you, then it’s only because you share his ignorance and automatically paint people with an overly broad brush, and assume that anyone who shares any particular belief is equivelant to the worst person who holds that belief.
The bulk of the movement, yes, I agree, and that’s why I pitted them. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who genuinely believe in the issue and aren’t just using it as a partisan political lie.
I am not a Republican, and I have nearly decade long posting history on this board where my views on this issue have been consistent.
It would actually be a much harder task to find a modern federal law that is constitutional. They are all outside the bounds of article 1 section 8 unless “interstate commerce” is a secret word for “we actually mean that this constitution is meaningless - do was you wish”
This is reinforced with the 10th amendment, where they smacked us over the head with the idea in case we didn’t understand the purpose of the rest of the constitution.
Fundamentally, yes. I’m saying that if we’re going to actually say we’re following the constitution, then we should follow the constitution. I don’t want to hear any idiots crying “it’s unconstitutional!” about a particular law because as far as they know the constitution is just the bill of rights.
I don’t understand what people like you think is even the point of having a constitution if it’s a “living document” that means whatever the government and society wants it to mean at that moment. If that’s the case, why not just get rid of the constitution and do whatever the government and society wants to do at that particular moment? You would have the same results.
The people who founded this country were in a unique historical position - the sort of government they wanted to run had never really been attempted before. They knew that the overwhelming historical trend of governments were that they grew bigger, more powerful, and more oppressive, and they wanted to avoid it. So they debated on how that might actually happen - and the conclusion was that that there would be a binding contract on the government, a constitution, which strictly limited what they could or couldn’t do, and what they could or couldn’t be. If you have hard restrictions right there in writing, the government could not arbitrarily grant itself powers.
The entire point of having a constitution is to say “this is all a government can do” - and you seem to think it means the government can do anything it wants. What the fuck is the point of having it then?
Yes, I get it. People collectively have decided that the government envisioned by the US constitution isn’t what they want - or at least it’s not something they were willing to fight about - so they allowed it to gradually go out of use until it’s practically meaningless. In order to give lip service to the idea that we’re still somehow operating by it, they invent silly stuff like “uh, general welfare means we can do anything! Interstate commerce means anything and everything, because if we pass laws about guys jerking off to gay porn in their house… that porn may have come from out of state!”
Yes. The commerce clause is now used to justify just about anything - with no, or with a very tenuous connection to actual commerce. It is essentially held up by its supporters as “anything that we can connect to commerce or kevin bacon in only 6 steps falls in this category”
Clearly that was not the intent. They didn’t hide a line in there that essentially invalidates the rest of the constitution, which is more or less the current popular interpretation.
I for one am astonished that ivn1188’s comments haven’t drawn a moderator warning. If he hasn’t crossed the line against personal attacks, he’s standing right up against it.
As for “The vast majority of laws passed in the last hundred years or so are unconstitutional”: well the ultimate authority in charge of determining whether a law is constitutional or not- the Supreme Court- has either upheld or refused to hear challenges to our current laws, so by some interpretation they are indeed constitutional.
The problem is that over the centuries different Supreme Courts have adopted different philosophies about how to rule on cases. In general, Supreme Court judges, being human, have a tendency to find excuses for supporting positions that they feel are prima facie obvious. Different courts have been alternately anti-federalist, federalist, conservative, progressive, libertarian, authoritarian, legalistic, interpretivist, etc.
We could have had a system similar to Britain’s where the legislature is sovereign- the British parliment can in principle enact anything by a majority vote- but since our ancestors felt that such as system had ill-treated them, they decided to enshrine a system whereby (in theory) the people are sovereign and the government has limitations on its authority. What has Joe Sixpack upset today is the feeling that there is increasingly less that a common citizen can do to determine the laws and rules that he will live under; the feeling that technocrats effectively insulated from public opinion hand down decrees like some class of philosopher-kings; that the peasants are supposed to shut up and do what they’re told.
Psst … check which forum this is. As long as he hasn’t told somebody to fuck himself, he’s fine.
Kudos on a fine post, ivn. 
I assume you feel the same way about Gitmo, freedom of the press, etc.
If you want to discard the notion of limited government altogether, then feel free to propose it. All I ask is that you be up front about it. Simply admit that you don’t expect anyone else to respect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution either.
If you want the President to violate his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, go ahead and say so. If you want decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade or Miranda to be ignored, say so publicly.
And be sure to say so when a Republican is President and the GOP controls Congress, so we know you are sincere, and not just a power-mongering asshole.
Regards,
Shodan
You might not be a teabagger but if you believe every law passed in the last 100 years is unconstitutional then you are on their same level of stupid.
Not every, but most. A higher percentage if you only include the FDR years onwards. Have you ever read the constitution? Or the debates that surrounded writing it? Do you understand what the purpose of it was?
Or is it just essentially the bill of rights to you along with some technical stuff as to how to logistically conduct government?
What are these laws that are unconstitutional? Name some of them if it’s so obvious, but don’t sit here going “Most of them clearly are because of…uh,…COMMERCE CLAUSE! And…the TENTH AMENDMENT! Yeah, that’s the ticket.” I can guarantee that the justices of the Supreme Court who have to decide these issues for a living have much greater knowledge of the original vision of the Constitution and the debates surrounding it than anyone here.
Unless you think the Supreme Court is part of some conspiracy to approve of whatever Congress wants.
Would it somehow make a difference if I listed out thousands of federal laws here?
I didn’t alege a conspiracy. I already outlined what happened - people decided that the government outlined by the constitution was at one point insufficiently powerful to fulfill the roles they wanted government to fulfill. This comes naturally from politicians, who are always looking to increase their personal power. And it comes from implicit support of a population either due to apathy, or because they too wanted a bigger government than the constitution allows. So the Supreme Court decided matters based on practicality and sentiment of the times rather than dedication to a set of ideals, and each court was bound by the precedent of a previous one.
Again, I’ve pretty much accepted it. I don’t like it, but the cat is massively out of the bag now. What bothers me is when people say “BUT THAT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” when a law runs afoul of one of the few pet parts of the constitution they actually like. It seems bizarre and silly and ignorant to get outraged at a drop in the bucket after the room has flooded.
No but it would sure be helpful if you gave us a couple!
Since you’ve been called on this a few times already, I think at least one would be in order. Hell, there’s plenty of low hanging fruit.
ETA: damn you otternell
So let’s hear some unconstitutional laws already.
No, I’m saying it’s pointless. I’ve made it clear that I think the majority of laws are not justified in the specific list of federal powers in article 1, section 8. My view on the issue is clear. I could pick some random laws that fulfull this, but what would be the point? A drawn out argument on its particular constitutionality? I’m heading off that discussion now because it’s a pointless hijack that won’t do anything to enlighten the situation.
The point would be to actually prove your point, instead of just making an assertion.
The point would be to actually apply your criteria of consitutionality to a single piece of federal legilsation that’s been passed in the last 100 years. Hell, you could have taken the easy way out and pointed to a law struck down by the US Supreme Court and still technically met the challenge. This would only be the starting point toward verfiying the the claim of “most,” but at least you wouldn’t look like such a chump. As it is, you’ve cemented your reputation as an ignorant blow hard.
Well, the Supreme Court has disagreed with you for 200 years. They count more than you.
Okay. This will result in a hijack that will not advance the discussion, since the real meat of the discussion is whether or not the constitution actually means something or if it’s just says whatever the politicians in power say it says at any given time, and this is just minutia, but fine, because you think you’ve somehow pinned me down with the issue I’ll respond.
The powers available to congress on which to pass laws are available in section 1 of the constitution. It specifically enumerates the powers that Congress has.
And the tenth amendment says
Stuff not on that aforementioned list is an issue for state governments.
The Omnibus Appropriations act of 2009.. Do I need to provide specific lines in the law, or just speak in general terms?
Just looking in broad terms (the list and basic description of each section on the first few pages) in the order that they’re listed:
The WIC, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, International Food Aid, Animal and Plant Health, Agricultural Research, rural development, conservation progarms, local law enforcement grants, communtiy oriented policing services, office of violence against women, office of justice programs, science and science education, global climate change research, nasa, NOAA, NSF, EDA, economic development assistance, everything under “efficiency and renewable energies”, everything under “office of science”, small business assistance, community developed financial institutions, financial education…
There’s a whole lot more. Should I keep listing?
That was just taking the low hanging fruit over the first few pages. There are others on there that could easily fall outside the scope of the powers granted to the federal congress, but I’d have to read their respective sections to make a better evaluation.
This also does not indicate that I think those are necesarily bad laws - but outside the scope of federal powers granted by the constitution. I would support an amendment to the constitution which allowed the creation and funding of stuff like the national science foundation and NASA.
[hijack]
Everyone who is even marginally interested in the thread topic, on either or any side of the argument, should read The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy, by Daniel Lazare.
[/hijack]
Sneor Beef: first of all - I will admit that I am not particularly versed in gov’t or law, nor am I a good debater. So here goes nuthin’:
from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
You are saying that these items you mentioned do not provide for the common defence (sic) or general welfare of the US?