I don't know if this is a new idea though.

 

Would you call the founding father's elitists because they chose to have the President chosen by an Electoral college rather than a winner of the popular vote?

 

What, you mean they didn't think most Americans had the capability to make important decisions?

 

The founders couldn't have been the elites could they:sssh:

Lets travell down to the end of Article I, Section 8 for the answer:

 

(Congress has the authority) "...To make all Laws which shall be neccesssary and proper for carrying into Execution the foreegoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Goverenment of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof."

 

This is generally called the elastic clause of the Constitution. If the laws that Congress enacts are consistent with the powers that they are given(and subsequently through the interpretation of the Supreme Court), they are allowed to do so.

 

Example: In Article I Section 8, Congress is given power over all Legislation and Cases in the District that is the seat of the US Government(Washington DC). Nowhere does it mention the power or ability to establish a local government for the City of Washington DC, but in 1967, Congress did just that due to power given it by the Elastic Clause.

You know what the real sad thing is? Even if I were to disagree with the court's interpretation here, at least the thought of whether or not the Federal Government has the power to do so was considered in the process of creating this new power. Nowadays, the Federal Government gets a blank sheet of what they want to do.

I don't know if this is a new idea though.

 

Would you call the founding father's elitists because they chose to have the President chosen by an Electoral college rather than a winner of the popular vote?

No, I would call them prophetic. If they were elitists, they would have created a system of monarchies and nobles like they had back in England. George Washington wouldn't have turned down kingship and he wouldn't have stepped down after 2 terms.

 

(Yes, I know you are better at history than me. Please enlighten me so I can formulate an accurate argument :lol:)

Okay, I just read throgh this article for a third time and this sentence at the end jumped off the page about 10 feet:

 

Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax, spend and regulate as it pleases or have Americans said, "To hell with the Constitution"?

 

 

I'll just take the first clause of the sentence, "Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax,"

 

Easy answer: YES, in dealing with personal incomes.

 

16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

 

 

Of course, the author ignores Article I Section 8 clause 1 where it states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

 

Spending:"..., to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;"

 

 

Regulate: Commerce Clause: "...To regulate Commerce...amoung the several States..."

 

 

Now the argument he has with this sentence is "as it (Congress) pleases?"

 

That is what the Supreme Court is for. If actions of Congress or the Executive go to far, it is the power of the Judicial Branch to check that power. He mentions the Courts have capitulated, but if that is the case, the onus is on the Court for not doing thier job.

Okay, I just read throgh this article for a third time and this sentence at the end jumped off the page about 10 feet:

 

 

 

 

I'll just take the first clause of the sentence, "Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax,"

 

Easy answer: YES, in dealing with personal incomes.

 

16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

 

 

Of course, the author ignores Article I Section 8 clause 1 where it states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

 

Spending:"..., to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;"

 

 

Regulate: Commerce Clause: "...To regulate Commerce...amoung the several States..."

 

 

Now the argument he has with this sentence is "as it (Congress) pleases?"

 

That is what the Supreme Court is for. If actions of Congress or the Executive go to far, it is the power of the Judicial Branch to check that power. He mentions the Courts have capitulated, but if that is the case, the onus is on the Court for not doing thier job.

But the article also says:

Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate

 

Today, limitations from the constitution are largely ignored. And yes, the clauses you mentioned do give some powers to the federal government. But when one of the founding fathers- James Madison- explicitly says "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite," do you think the scope to which the Federal Government exists now was what they had in mind?

But the article also says:

Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate

 

Today, limitations from the constitution are largely ignored. And yes, the clauses you mentioned do give some powers to the federal government. But when one of the founding fathers- James Madison- explicitly says "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite," do you think the scope to which the Federal Government exists now was what they had in mind?[/QUOTE]

 

Honestly, yes I do. I don't think they would have wanted it to happen that way, but with the ambiguity that they put into the Constitution, there is no way that men as smart as people say they were, could not forsee this happening. Plus, the fact that the Articles of Confederation were seen as a failure, because the National Governemnt was not powerful enought. I think that the founders were complex figures who can be seen as paradoxes. They were men who were agaisnt factions, but they are responsible for the development of political parties in our government. As Madison correctly writes, the powers are few and defined, but they also have the ability to be expanded without limits- due to the ambigutity built in. The Amendment process built into the Constitution gives the country the ability to turn itself into a complete Democracy or a Complete Dictatorship.

 

The greatest ambiguity lies in the body that is tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and the actions by the Legislative and Executive Branches. Congress and the President can overstep what are seen as thier Constitutonal boundaries, but the only body that Constitutionally decides if the do is the Supreme Court. We can say they have, but what we say doesn't count, even if it was a cut and dry case. We can vote those people out, but we can't pass Constitutional Judgement. Article III is very short, and there is no limit given to the terms of the Judiciary(save good behavior). There is no set number on members of the Supreme Court, or ways for them to be appointed and Confirmed by the Senate, as they are today. There is no direction given to the court on how they should interpret actions. I have said before that interpretation of the Constitution is up for interpretation. I think that the founders were so brilliant that they constructed a document with such immediate power, and long-term foresight. IMO, if the Constitution was supposed to be a document that truly gave the Governement some power, but truly limited that power, they would have fulfilled their true mission in 1787, which was to only Amend the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap it.

 

Sorry it got so long winded. I have no issues with anyone who feels that the Constitution should or does limit the Federal Government more than I do, but I think if we feel Congress and the President have overstepped thier bounds, we of the Electorae have a duty to vote them out of office, and put more responsible persons in. That is something that we have failed as a country,that has nothing to do with our elected officials.

What, you mean they didn't think most Americans had the capability to make important decisions?

 

The founders couldn't have been the elites could they:sssh:

 

My point. :thumb:

No, I would call them prophetic. If they were elitists, they would have created a system of monarchies and nobles like they had back in England. George Washington wouldn't have turned down kingship and he wouldn't have stepped down after 2 terms.

 

(Yes, I know you are better at history than me. Please enlighten me so I can formulate an accurate argument :lol:)

 

We were blessed to have Washington as our First President.

 

We were likewise blessed to have leadership that could forge compromises and middle ground in order for the country to begin. The Electoral College was part of that compromise. (Hence my point) Compromise or not, their actions were at the root because the majority of the Founding process did not trust the populace. Hence you had to be land owners at one time. Men only at one time. White only at one time.

 

So I guess my point was that we declare some on here as acting elitist and yet maybe it's always been that way, even among our most revered figures.

But the article also says:

Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate

 

Today, limitations from the constitution are largely ignored. And yes, the clauses you mentioned do give some powers to the federal government. But when one of the founding fathers- James Madison- explicitly says "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite," do you think the scope to which the Federal Government exists now was what they had in mind?[/QUOTE]

 

Honestly, yes I do. I don't think they would have wanted it to happen that way, but with the ambiguity that they put into the Constitution, there is no way that men as smart as people say they were, could not forsee this happening. Plus, the fact that the Articles of Confederation were seen as a failure, because the National Governemnt was not powerful enought. I think that the founders were complex figures who can be seen as paradoxes. They were men who were agaisnt factions, but they are responsible for the development of political parties in our government. As Madison correctly writes, the powers are few and defined, but they also have the ability to be expanded without limits- due to the ambigutity built in. The Amendment process built into the Constitution gives the country the ability to turn itself into a complete Democracy or a Complete Dictatorship.

 

The greatest ambiguity lies in the body that is tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and the actions by the Legislative and Executive Branches. Congress and the President can overstep what are seen as thier Constitutonal boundaries, but the only body that Constitutionally decides if the do is the Supreme Court. We can say they have, but what we say doesn't count, even if it was a cut and dry case. We can vote those people out, but we can't pass Constitutional Judgement. Article III is very short, and there is no limit given to the terms of the Judiciary(save good behavior). There is no set number on members of the Supreme Court, or ways for them to be appointed and Confirmed by the Senate, as they are today. There is no direction given to the court on how they should interpret actions. I have said before that interpretation of the Constitution is up for interpretation. I think that the founders were so brilliant that they constructed a document with such immediate power, and long-term foresight. IMO, if the Constitution was supposed to be a document that truly gave the Governement some power, but truly limited that power, they would have fulfilled their true mission in 1787, which was to only Amend the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap it.

 

Sorry it got so long winded. I have no issues with anyone who feels that the Constitution should or does limit the Federal Government more than I do, but I think if we feel Congress and the President have overstepped thier bounds, we of the Electorae have a duty to vote them out of office, and put more responsible persons in. That is something that we have failed as a country,that has nothing to do with our elected officials.

 

I honestly love that paragraph I bolded. :thumb: Great stuff IMHO.

Great article. Makes sense. Too bad nobody in DC will read it.

I think that is fair in 1776 and around then when there were 13-15 states.

 

And things are somewhat different now when I can order this stupid new keyboard my wife bought from Hong Kong and receive it before Madison could order and get something from his own state.

 

Also, I don't hold these guys in so much high esteem as others as they continued to let slavery go.

 

Fine. Then the Constitution should be formally amended to permit the fed govt the powers that people think it should have. Until then, however, the fed should be restrained to only those powers listed in the Constitution.

Honestly, yes I do. I don't think they would have wanted it to happen that way, but with the ambiguity that they put into the Constitution, there is no way that men as smart as people say they were, could not forsee this happening. Plus, the fact that the Articles of Confederation were seen as a failure, because the National Governemnt was not powerful enought. I think that the founders were complex figures who can be seen as paradoxes. They were men who were agaisnt factions, but they are responsible for the development of political parties in our government. As Madison correctly writes, the powers are few and defined, but they also have the ability to be expanded without limits- due to the ambigutity built in. The Amendment process built into the Constitution gives the country the ability to turn itself into a complete Democracy or a Complete Dictatorship.

 

The greatest ambiguity lies in the body that is tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and the actions by the Legislative and Executive Branches. Congress and the President can overstep what are seen as thier Constitutonal boundaries, but the only body that Constitutionally decides if the do is the Supreme Court. We can say they have, but what we say doesn't count, even if it was a cut and dry case. We can vote those people out, but we can't pass Constitutional Judgement. Article III is very short, and there is no limit given to the terms of the Judiciary(save good behavior). There is no set number on members of the Supreme Court, or ways for them to be appointed and Confirmed by the Senate, as they are today. There is no direction given to the court on how they should interpret actions. I have said before that interpretation of the Constitution is up for interpretation. I think that the founders were so brilliant that they constructed a document with such immediate power, and long-term foresight. IMO, if the Constitution was supposed to be a document that truly gave the Governement some power, but truly limited that power, they would have fulfilled their true mission in 1787, which was to only Amend the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap it.

 

Sorry it got so long winded. I have no issues with anyone who feels that the Constitution should or does limit the Federal Government more than I do, but I think if we feel Congress and the President have overstepped thier bounds, we of the Electorae have a duty to vote them out of office, and put more responsible persons in. That is something that we have failed as a country,that has nothing to do with our elected officials.

Certainly the responsibility lies with us voters. Maybe part of the problem is that we don't value Supreme Court nominees as much as we should. Or, to be more concise, we want people on the Supreme Court to share our ideas, but we should really want Supreme Court nominees who would hold Congress and the Executive Branch accountable to the Constitution.

 

But you are right that the problem with spending could be fixed by a disciplined and active voting base.

Certainly the responsibility lies with us voters. Maybe part of the problem is that we don't value Supreme Court nominees as much as we should. Or, to be more concise, we want people on the Supreme Court to share our ideas, but we should really want Supreme Court nominees who would hold Congress and the Executive Branch accountable to the Constitution.

 

But you are right that the problem with spending could be fixed by a disciplined and active voting base.

 

:thumb:

Not what I was implying. I was implying that each individual state can govern itself better than the federal government can balance all the demands of all the states, which differ from each other geographically, demographically, etc.

 

Sorry that I misread your post.

Certainly the responsibility lies with us voters. Maybe part of the problem is that we don't value Supreme Court nominees as much as we should. Or, to be more concise, we want people on the Supreme Court to share our ideas, but we should really want Supreme Court nominees who would hold Congress and the Executive Branch accountable to the Constitution.

 

But you are right that the problem with spending could be fixed by a disciplined and active voting base.

 

But since we wil never see this during our lifetime, I must agree with you that individual states are much better equipped to deal with their own problems.

 

The purpose of federal government should be national protection, and oversight of the states to make sure policies are not harmful to the nation as a whole.

 

I realize this may appear to be to some to be, arguing with your post, since I quoted it, but in essence I am agreeing with most of them, wholeheartedly!