Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 2/27/2008 11:29:17 AM EST
A simple question...

We have a suprising number of 'Constitutional Experts' on this site, who apparently never read the document that they are such absolute experts on...

The 'proof' of this is in the claims they make, for example:

'The Constitution only authorizes making treaties with foreign powers, not extranational entities like the UN'
Which is false, the Constitution does not limit who treaties can be made with

'The Constitution requires a declaration of war for US troops to engage in hostilities overseas'
Again, false, no such requirement exists in the document

'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people'
Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power

'The Income Tax is unconstitutional'
Wrong based on (a) the power to tax (with no specifics on what may or may not be taxed) being granted to Congress in the body of the document, and (b) the 16th Ammendment clearly stating that income may be taxed

Truly being a strict constructionist requires that you acknowledge ALL powers granted or reserved by the Constitution.... Not just the ones that agree with your personal politics (Remember: Many things that are the wrong course of action are still a legal & constitutional course of action, based on the literal text of the Constitution!)...

But of course to do that, you have to read the thing...

P.S. Quotes from the Founders do not trump the actual law... We are not a national 'Cult of the Founding' which worships the words of the men who wrote the Constitution and ignores it's text...

As politically 'agreeable' as it may be for some of you to wish we could toss out the Constitution and replace it with 'The Founder Bible' (containing the amassed quotes of your favorite Founders - and ignoring the 'UnLibertarian' ones you don't agree with, of course), this is NOT a way to run a nation...

So posting those quotes is pointless, especially when they are contradicted or ignored by the text of the Constitution itself...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:32:07 AM EST
[#1]
This will end badly.

Dave, some of your points are valid. Some are not. You probably ought to stick to what you know.

Not a dig. Just friendly advice.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:33:37 AM EST
[#2]

Quoted:
P.S. Quotes from the Founders do not trump the actual law... We are not a national 'Cult of the Founding' which worships the words of the men who wrote the Constitution and ignores it's text...

As politically 'agreeable' as it may be for some of you to wish we could toss out the Constitution and replace it with 'The Founder Bible' (containing the amassed quotes of your favorite Founders, this is NOT a way to run a nation...

So posting those quotes is pointless, especially when they are contradicted or ignored by the text of the Constitution itself...


QFT.  Also, remember the quote that you are posting is from one of the founding fathers.  There were 39 people who signed the Constitution.  Just because one person felt one way, that does not mean that he spoke for the other 38 people or that his view was the same view that was put into the Constitution.  The Constitution trumps your quotes.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:34:19 AM EST
[#3]
Tag for reading material.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:35:03 AM EST
[#4]

Quoted:
This will end badly.

Dave, some of your points are valid. Some are not. You probably ought to stick to what you know.

Not a dig. Just friendly advice.


I would say I know this one quite well...

And someone has to challenge the 'collective circle jerks' of ARFCOM every so often...

Maybe make someone think about what they are saying...

Last week it was the 'Shooting Mexicans & Encouraging War Crimes' thread...

This week it's the 'Fake Constitutionalist who has never read the document' thread (inspired by the SPC New thread)...

P.S. I predict that the site's habitual-offenders will all claim to have read the entire thing... Despite making claims of 'unconstitutionality' that no one would make if they actually READ the Constitution...

Mr 'Treaties' would be a prime example of such a person...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:37:32 AM EST
[#5]
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:38:51 AM EST
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This will end badly.

Dave, some of your points are valid. Some are not. You probably ought to stick to what you know.

Not a dig. Just friendly advice.


I would say I know this one quite well...

And someone has to challenge the 'collective circle jerks' of ARFCOM every so often...

Maybe make someone think about what they are saying...

Last week it was the 'Shooting Mexicans & Encouraging War Crimes' thread...

This week it's the 'Fake Constitutionalist who has never read the document' thread (inspired by the SPC New thread)...



Do you actually think ANYONE is going to admit they did not read the Constitution? I know plenty of people who never did, but swore they had.

And just reading the Constitution is only a jumping off point to actually understanding it. Without understanding the context in which it was written, the historical background of the terms used, and the philosophical underpinnings, the words themself can be easily twisted into something far different from their original meaning.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:39:24 AM EST
[#7]
Constitution?

Isn't that the brand of toilet paper preferred by liberals?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:39:38 AM EST
[#8]
Dave, either go away or cease and desist making sense. If this is not done, fingers-sticking-in-ears action WILL BE TAKEN, and may be accompanied by verbal notice of inability to hear you.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:40:06 AM EST
[#9]
Another one of these, huh?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:41:09 AM EST
[#10]
Ihave....its been years though
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:41:20 AM EST
[#11]
I have read some parts of it
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:41:25 AM EST
[#12]
I think I saw a schoolhouse rock cartoon about it? Or was that I'm just a bill?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:46:42 AM EST
[#13]
Not only have I read it, I was taught it, by a lawyer admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, who also happened to be a retired FBI Special Agent.  How 'bout you?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:46:47 AM EST
[#14]

I've read all of it and I've also written a couple of essays on it.
I agree with your assessment that most people on this site know very little about constitutional law.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:47:17 AM EST
[#15]

Quoted:
snip........reading the Constitution is only a jumping off point to actually understanding it........snip


QFT

I've read it in its entirety.  I definitely don't understand all of it.  

I do have actual size replicas of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights.  Another project in the works that has been put on hold since the birth of our first child...  I need to get out in the shop and build some frames.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:48:36 AM EST
[#16]
here we go...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 11:53:41 AM EST
[#17]
I have a copy next to me when I go on line.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:09:53 PM EST
[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
This will end badly.

Dave, some of your points are valid. Some are not. You probably ought to stick to what you know.

Not a dig. Just friendly advice.


I would say I know this one quite well...

And someone has to challenge the 'collective circle jerks' of ARFCOM every so often...

Maybe make someone think about what they are saying...

Last week it was the 'Shooting Mexicans & Encouraging War Crimes' thread...

This week it's the 'Fake Constitutionalist who has never read the document' thread (inspired by the SPC New thread)...



Do you actually think ANYONE is going to admit they did not read the Constitution? I know plenty of people who never did, but swore they had.

We have several honest folks already

And just reading the Constitution is only a jumping off point to actually understanding it. Without understanding the context in which it was written, the historical background of the terms used, and the philosophical underpinnings, the words themself can be easily twisted into something far different from their original meaning.

This thread is aimed at the folks who claim things clearly in contradiction with the text...

If the Constitution was simple enough that everyone could understand every nuance (or treated as such), the Supreme Court would be the nation's most powerful poker club...


Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:16:27 PM EST
[#19]
I can't read
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:18:09 PM EST
[#20]
Your poll needs multiple choices.

I have read all of it, but I only pay attention to the parts that I agree with.



Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:21:08 PM EST
[#21]
My constitutional law professor in law school make damn sure we all read it, several times. (he was stickler for details like that)
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:26:18 PM EST
[#22]

Quoted:
Your poll needs multiple choices.

I have read all of it, but I only pay attention to the parts that I agree with.





Which is pretty much what the Libs do...

They read the Constitution and then ignore everything but part of the 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:27:48 PM EST
[#23]

'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people'

Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power



Not quite right. The only constitutional constraint on the people is found in the 21st amendment, which forbids interstate transfer of intoxicating liquors without payment of a tax.  It is otherwise impossible for a non-state actor to violate a constitutional provision.



Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:28:18 PM EST
[#24]

Quoted:
Not only have I read it, I was taught it, by a lawyer admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, who also happened to be a retired FBI Special Agent.  How 'bout you?


Read it... Not that 'notable' of an education on it though...

Of course, the thread is not aimed at you (presumably - you don't strike me as one of the 'common Constitutional offenders')...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:29:18 PM EST
[#25]
I read all the amendments again last night. I made a note to celebrate every Dec 5.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:32:16 PM EST
[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Your poll needs multiple choices.

I have read all of it, but I only pay attention to the parts that I agree with.





Which is pretty much what the Libs do...

They read the Constitution and then ignore everything but part of the 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments...


I only pay attention to the part that says I get to have a gun. That's the only part that really matters.



Page 2 = mine

I think this'll be a good one. I'm gonna IM Nationwide and Cinncinatus the link.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:54:13 PM EST
[#27]
For all of those folks that need one the Heritage Foundation is giving away free pocket size ones. Of course you have to sign up for email so you may be getting some junk as well

Free Pocket Constitution
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 12:57:08 PM EST
[#28]
I used to carry a copy in my bag always...I forgot who printed the little pocket copies...I'll look for mine...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:04:59 PM EST
[#29]

Quoted:
A simple question...

We have a suprising number of 'Constitutional Experts' on this site, who apparently never read the document that they are such absolute experts on...

The 'proof' of this is in the claims they make, for example:

'The Constitution only authorizes making treaties with foreign powers, not extranational entities like the UN'
Which is false, the Constitution does not limit who treaties can be made with You are both right and wrong. We can make treaties with the UN. That is because the UN is a sovereign entity under international law. Treaties can only be made with sovereign entities. I saw in a different thread someone who claimed the US could make a treaty with Bill Gates if it wanted. This is not correct. While the Constitution does not spell out in detail who we can and cannot make treaties with, the history of English law gives the context needed.

'The Constitution requires a declaration of war for US troops to engage in hostilities overseas'
Again, false, no such requirement exists in the document Well, this is a VERY gray area. The Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power to DECLARE war. This would seem to imply that only Congress can initiate an offensive war. But, it also does not spell out the exact form a declaration must take. Must if be formally titles "A Declaration of War," or can a Congressional enabling act suffice? However, the US since our second President has fought more undeclared than declared wars, so it is essentially a moot point.

'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people'
Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power You are completely upside down on the X Amendment. That amendment CLEARLY states that the powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. It provides NO limitation on state power. Article I Section 10 provides clear limits on state powers, as does Article III Section 2 and Article VI

'The Income Tax is unconstitutional'
Wrong based on (a) the power to tax (with no specifics on what may or may not be taxed) being granted to Congress in the body of the document, and (b) the 16th Ammendment clearly stating that income may be taxed People who deny the Constitutionality of the income tax probably also believe the earth is flat. But, there is a restrictions on what may be taxed found in Article I Section 8, and another in Section 9.

Truly being a strict constructionist requires that you acknowledge ALL powers granted or reserved by the Constitution.... Not just the ones that agree with your personal politics (Remember: Many things that are the wrong course of action are still a legal & constitutional course of action, based on the literal text of the Constitution!)... The LITERAL text can get you in trouble. Word meanings have morphed in the last 220 years. What is called for is reading the text in light of the commonly understood meaning used at the time of drafting and ratification.

<snip>
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:08:14 PM EST
[#30]
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:15:37 PM EST
[#31]
Yeah, I've read the Constitution.

+1 on the preamble.

I have no doubt that a majority of of the douchebag bureaucrats have been trying to usurp it's intention for near a good 60 years or so.




What's your point?

ETA:  Reminds me of a discussion at work about Eminent domain.  What's your take on it?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:16:41 PM EST
[#32]
Read/reading most of it....

Conlaw is next year however...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:17:27 PM EST
[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A simple question...

We have a suprising number of 'Constitutional Experts' on this site, who apparently never read the document that they are such absolute experts on...

The 'proof' of this is in the claims they make, for example:

'The Constitution only authorizes making treaties with foreign powers, not extranational entities like the UN'
Which is false, the Constitution does not limit who treaties can be made with You are both right and wrong. We can make treaties with the UN. That is because the UN is a sovereign entity under international law. Treaties can only be made with sovereign entities. I saw in a different thread someone who claimed the US could make a treaty with Bill Gates if it wanted. This is not correct. While the Constitution does not spell out in detail who we can and cannot make treaties with, the history of English law gives the context needed.

We seem to have made a fair amount of treaties with individual Indian bands, while apparently not regarding them as 'sovreign nations' for most of our early history...

Although it is technically moot, the point is that the Constitution grants a power to make treaties (and a power to the Senate to ratify), without limiting who the treaty may be made with...

It was aimed at the individual who thought that the Constitution limited treaties to foreign nations, in the SPC New thread


'The Constitution requires a declaration of war for US troops to engage in hostilities overseas'
Again, false, no such requirement exists in the document Well, this is a VERY gray area. The Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power to DECLARE war. This would seem to imply that only Congress can initiate an offensive war. But, it also does not spell out the exact form a declaration must take. Must if be formally titles "A Declaration of War," or can a Congressional enabling act suffice? However, the US since our second President has fought more undeclared than declared wars, so it is essentially a moot point.

The point here is that there is no requirement for such a declaration to be issued anywhere - Congress has the power to do so... But nothing requires it in order to have an offensive war...

'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people'
Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power You are completely upside down on the X Amendment. That amendment CLEARLY states that the powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. It provides NO limitation on state power. Article I Section 10 provides clear limits on state powers, as does Article III Section 2 and Article VI

I would contend that by prohibiting states from assuming 'The powers reserved to the United States, nor prhoibited to the States', that it does limit the States as well as the Feds (by denying the States the ability to usurp powers given to the Feds or denied to said States by another section of the document)...

It just limits the Feds a bit more than the States (whereas other sections of the document are more generous to the Feds and restrictive to the States)...


'The Income Tax is unconstitutional'
Wrong based on (a) the power to tax (with no specifics on what may or may not be taxed) being granted to Congress in the body of the document, and (b) the 16th Ammendment clearly stating that income may be taxed People who deny the Constitutionality of the income tax probably also believe the earth is flat. But, there is a restrictions on what may be taxed found in Article I Section 8, and another in Section 9.

Truly being a strict constructionist requires that you acknowledge ALL powers granted or reserved by the Constitution.... Not just the ones that agree with your personal politics (Remember: Many things that are the wrong course of action are still a legal & constitutional course of action, based on the literal text of the Constitution!)... The LITERAL text can get you in trouble. Word meanings have morphed in the last 220 years. What is called for is reading the text in light of the commonly understood meaning used at the time of drafting and ratification.

And for that, we have the Court... However, I will point out that 'selective reading' makes attempts at doing things in the manner you describe (which is essentially one of the things the Court does now) equally hazardous - as evidenced by the 'Quote Bible' folks on this site who cherry-pick libertarian quotes to support their positions, ignoring the actions & the quotes/writings of other founders who contradict their posts...

Attempting to interject other extra-legal texts into the Constitution creates room for the 'living document theory' to live on, just pointed in a different direction from where the Liberals want to take it...


<snip>
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:21:17 PM EST
[#34]
Dave, some of your interpretations are in dispute and have been since 1789.  I have read the Constitution many times, read most of the Federalist Papers, much of the Anti-Federalist writings, a stupid number of pre and post republic (British and American), various writings of most governmental philosophers since Plato, the constitutions of a few states (though I know best Florida), and constitutions either written by us for other nations or those we have approved (Japan and Germany the prime examples).  I am no expert, but I am also not ignorant.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:24:11 PM EST
[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
A simple question...

We have a suprising number of 'Constitutional Experts' on this site, who apparently never read the document that they are such absolute experts on...

The 'proof' of this is in the claims they make, for example:

'The Constitution only authorizes making treaties with foreign powers, not extranational entities like the UN'
Which is false, the Constitution does not limit who treaties can be made with You are both right and wrong. We can make treaties with the UN. That is because the UN is a sovereign entity under international law. Treaties can only be made with sovereign entities. I saw in a different thread someone who claimed the US could make a treaty with Bill Gates if it wanted. This is not correct. While the Constitution does not spell out in detail who we can and cannot make treaties with, the history of English law gives the context needed.

We seem to have made a fair amount of treaties with individual Indian bands, while apparently not regarding them as 'sovreign nations' for most of our early history...

Although it is technically moot, the point is that the Constitution grants a power to make treaties (and a power to the Senate to ratify), without limiting who the treaty may be made with...

It was aimed at the individual who thought that the Constitution limited treaties to foreign nations, in the SPC New thread


'The Constitution requires a declaration of war for US troops to engage in hostilities overseas'
Again, false, no such requirement exists in the document Well, this is a VERY gray area. The Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power to DECLARE war. This would seem to imply that only Congress can initiate an offensive war. But, it also does not spell out the exact form a declaration must take. Must if be formally titles "A Declaration of War," or can a Congressional enabling act suffice? However, the US since our second President has fought more undeclared than declared wars, so it is essentially a moot point.

The point here is that there is no requirement for such a declaration to be issued anywhere - Congress has the power to do so... But nothing requires it in order to have an offensive war...

'The Constitution exists only to limit the Federal Government, not to limit the states or the people'
Again, clearly false based on the text which, (a) in the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States, and (b) in the actual body of the document, states that the Federal Constitution, and any treaties ratified or laws enacted under it's authority have supremacy over the laws & Constitutions of the States. Which would be a clear limit on STATE power You are completely upside down on the X Amendment. That amendment CLEARLY states that the powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. It provides NO limitation on state power. Article I Section 10 provides clear limits on state powers, as does Article III Section 2 and Article VI

I would contend that by prohibiting states from assuming 'The powers reserved to the United States, nor prhoibited to the States', that it does limit the States as well as the Feds (by denying the States the ability to usurp powers given to the Feds or denied to said States by another section of the document)...

It just limits the Feds a bit more than the States (whereas other sections of the document are more generous to the Feds and restrictive to the States)...


'The Income Tax is unconstitutional'
Wrong based on (a) the power to tax (with no specifics on what may or may not be taxed) being granted to Congress in the body of the document, and (b) the 16th Ammendment clearly stating that income may be taxed People who deny the Constitutionality of the income tax probably also believe the earth is flat. But, there is a restrictions on what may be taxed found in Article I Section 8, and another in Section 9.

Truly being a strict constructionist requires that you acknowledge ALL powers granted or reserved by the Constitution.... Not just the ones that agree with your personal politics (Remember: Many things that are the wrong course of action are still a legal & constitutional course of action, based on the literal text of the Constitution!)... The LITERAL text can get you in trouble. Word meanings have morphed in the last 220 years. What is called for is reading the text in light of the commonly understood meaning used at the time of drafting and ratification.

And for that, we have the Court... However, I will point out that 'selective reading' makes attempts at doing things in the manner you describe (which is essentially one of the things the Court does now) equally hazardous - as evidenced by the 'Quote Bible' folks on this site who cherry-pick libertarian quotes to support their positions, ignoring the actions & the quotes/writings of other founders who contradict their posts...

Attempting to interject other extra-legal texts into the Constitution creates room for the 'living document theory' to live on, just pointed in a different direction from where the Liberals want to take it...


<snip>


Your interpretations here are consistent with someone who hasn't studied British constitutional and legal history.  That's ok.  But it also means a lot of what you are saying is just incorrect.  The American legal tradition didn't just pop out of thin air and the men who wrote the Constitution had a few fundamental assumptions about what certain things meant.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:27:18 PM EST
[#36]



the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States,


AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:29:27 PM EST
[#37]

Quoted:
I can't read


I'm waiting for the day it is converted to Spanish, and the old version is tossed out.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:30:08 PM EST
[#38]
I read the original one about 2 weeks ago; also went to the memorials. the best trip I've taken in a long time.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:32:40 PM EST
[#39]

Quoted:
Dave, some of your interpretations are in dispute and have been since 1789.  I have read the Constitution many times, read most of the Federalist Papers, much of the Anti-Federalist writings, a stupid number of pre and post republic (British and American), various writings of most governmental philosophers since Plato, the constitutions of a few states (though I know best Florida), and constitutions either written by us for other nations or those we have approved (Japan and Germany the prime examples).  I am no expert, but I am also not ignorant.


Never said any of that is settled fact...

Once again, the thread is aimed at THE FOLKS WHO CLAIM THINGS IN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:35:25 PM EST
[#40]

Quoted:



the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States,


AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


With that section being 'the point' of my statement...

Inverse negative...

If the powers NOT delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved to the States/People

The powers that ARE delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved for the US

Thus, it limits both sides...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:35:53 PM EST
[#41]
That's just like... your opinion, man.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:37:59 PM EST
[#42]

Quoted:
Your interpretations here are consistent with someone who hasn't studied British constitutional and legal history.  That's ok.  But it also means a lot of what you are saying is just incorrect.  The American legal tradition didn't just pop out of thin air and the men who wrote the Constitution had a few fundamental assumptions about what certain things meant.


And also had various fundamental problems with British Common Law...

Once again, let's stick to the presumptive ARFCOM constitutional experts who obviously haven't read it or don't care, because the things they say it requires are either not there or contradicted by what is there...

And not the high-level controversial shit that lawyers are still fighting over to this day...

P.S. The British don't have a 'constitutional' history, as they never had a Constitution... Their entire system of law is based on precedent & acts of Parliament, without a 'cornerstone' document like our Constitution (Magna Carta comes close, but that is still not the same)...
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 1:44:33 PM EST
[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:



the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States,


AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


With that section being 'the point' of my statement...

Inverse negative...

If the powers NOT delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved to the States/People

The powers that ARE delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved for the US

Thus, it limits both sides...


Agreed
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 2:16:11 PM EST
[#44]
Im still puzzled about the declaration of war scenario. Obviously we've gone to war quite a few times without it eg Nam, Bosnia, Korea, D.Storm etc etc but does that make it correct?

So the constitution grants Congress the EXCLUSIVE power to Declare war. But people like DaveA say all this means is that if Congress wanted to declare war they have the right but its not necessary. The framers felt the need to specifically point out which body (Congress) has the exclusive power to declare war but DaveA says this very statement actually means the opposite, anyone can bring the US to war if the military is willing. My question is, why even put it in the constitution if it for all intents and purposes has zero bearing on our decision to go to war? Did they make a habit of randomly throwing powers into the constitution to be not only completely ignored but to be interpreted by random people to mean the complete opposite of what it states?
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:05:08 PM EST
[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:



the 10th Ammendment clearly denies certain powers to the States/People and reserves them for the United States,


AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


With that section being 'the point' of my statement...

Inverse negative...

If the powers NOT delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved to the States/People

The powers that ARE delegated to the US or prohibited to the States are reserved for the US

Thus, it limits both sides...


Agreed


You are both wrong. Amendment X is very specific. It include NO new limit on the states, and no grant of any new power to the federal government. None. If a power is granted by the Constitution to the federal government, then the federal government has that power. All other powers, except those specifically prohibited to the states in the original text, belong to the states and/or the people. Thus it limits only one side: The federal.

Almost all the powers prohibited to the states in the Constitution were specifically granted to the federal: Power to make treaties, coin money, regulate international and interstate commerce, wage war, raise armies and navies, levy custom duties, etc. Only a very small set of powers are off limits to either the federal or state governments: Neither can grant titles of nobility for example. If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution, then via the X, it belongs to the states or to the people.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:06:33 PM EST
[#46]
I have... in fact I had to read part of it today in government.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:10:00 PM EST
[#47]

Quoted:
Im still puzzled about the declaration of war scenario. Obviously we've gone to war quite a few times without it eg Nam, Bosnia, Korea, D.Storm etc etc but does that make it correct?

So the constitution grants Congress the EXCLUSIVE power to Declare war. But people like DaveA say all this means is that if Congress wanted to declare war they have the right but its not necessary.

Correct. That is what the language of the document indicates

The framers felt the need to specifically point out which body (Congress) has the exclusive power to declare war but DaveA says this very statement actually means the opposite, anyone can bring the US to war if the military is willing. My question is, why even put it in the constitution if it for all intents and purposes has zero bearing on our decision to go to war?


What I say is NOT the complete opposite:

Congress has the exclusive power to DECLARE WAR.

However, weather war is declared has NO BEARING on actually fighting one...

The failure of logic here is that you connect 'Declaring War' and 'Fighting War' as if the first is needed for the second to happen..

Whereas in the language of the Constitution, there is nothing establishing that requirement.

What this means, quite simply, is that UNDECLARED war is Constitutional, and the exclusive province of the President under the power of Commander in Chief.

The only Congressional checks against this are (A) funding and (b) impeachment



Did they make a habit of randomly throwing powers into the constitution to be not only completely ignored Yes. Powers are granted, but not mandated to be used - when was the last time we issued Letters of Marque & Reprisal? but to be interpreted by random people to mean the complete opposite of what it states?

This little failure of logic is one of the most annoying possible:

I am interpreting it to mean exactly what it states, no more & no less:

Congress has the power to declare war. Period. It stops there...

Declaring war has nothing to do with going to war... One is Congressional, the other is Presidential, and there is no linkage in the Constitution between the two - they are mutually independent powers...



Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:12:48 PM EST
[#48]

Quoted:

You are both wrong. Amendment X is very specific. It include NO new limit on the states, and no grant of any new power to the federal government. None. If a power is granted by the Constitution to the federal government, then the federal government has that power. All other powers, except those specifically prohibited to the states in the original text, belong to the states and/or the people. Thus it limits only one side: The federal.

Almost all the powers prohibited to the states in the Constitution were specifically granted to the federal: Power to make treaties, coin money, regulate international and interstate commerce, wage war, raise armies and navies, levy custom duties, etc. Only a very small set of powers are off limits to either the federal or state governments: Neither can grant titles of nobility for example. If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution, then via the X, it belongs to the states or to the people.


We're dancing on the head of a pin here, around what the definition of 'limit' is...

My contention being that telling the States they cannot have any of the Feds explicit powers is a limit on the States (preventing them from having all the powers of the Federal government AS WELL as those denied to such)...

You are defining 'limit' in another fashion...

Let's not turn this thread into a 'What is the meaning of 'is' type Clintonesque debate....
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:13:17 PM EST
[#49]

Quoted:
Im still puzzled about the declaration of war scenario. Obviously we've gone to war quite a few times without it eg Nam, Bosnia, Korea, D.Storm etc etc but does that make it correct?

So the constitution grants Congress the EXCLUSIVE power to Declare war. But people like DaveA say all this means is that if Congress wanted to declare war they have the right but its not necessary. The framers felt the need to specifically point out which body (Congress) has the exclusive power to declare war but DaveA says this very statement actually means the opposite, anyone can bring the US to war if the military is willing. My question is, why even put it in the constitution if it for all intents and purposes has zero bearing on our decision to go to war? Did they make a habit of randomly throwing powers into the constitution to be not only completely ignored but to be interpreted by random people to mean the complete opposite of what it states?


The main confusion is over whether the waging of war requires a declaration of war. A declaration of war is a formal act that triggers certain rules of warfare and diplomacy to go into effect. The power to do this, formally declare a state of war in international and maritime law, is a power exclusively granted to Congress in Article I Section 8.

However, the President is also granted plenary powers as Commander in Chief in Article II Section 2. The exact limits of this power are not spelled out. Such staunch Constitutionalists as Jefferson and Madison fought numerous undeclared wars. Both received Congressional approval for their wars, but no formal declarations of war. Were they acting beyond their grant of power in the Constitution? Good arguments can be made on both sides. This is one of the rare areas in which a real gray area exists.
Link Posted: 2/27/2008 3:18:28 PM EST
[#50]
I believe I've read it all.  Can't say I've memorized it though.  

I believe the Congressional right to Declare War is similar to what we have with the 2nd Amendment.  Words that have never quite found their basis in facts and are sometimes barely worth the paper they are printed on.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top