Replies

As to your assertion that our government’s functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution, I invite you to consider the following fact: If these functions were so “clearly spelled out,” there would not exist all of the Supreme Courts cases that have been decided from the beginning of our government clarifying these “clearly spelled out functions in the constitution.”
That's absurd. The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning. The reason so many supreme court decisions exist isn't to clarify the powers of government but usurp powers that clearly were not included.

In principle, I agree with you. However, the question arises from some quarters as to exactly what those powers are, as well as, what means are appropriate to carry them out.
The questions arising typically aren't actual questions but attempts to twist the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”
Again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the Article I, section 8.
Yet, again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” Again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.
Yet, once more, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” And again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

The preamble does not carry the weight of law. The "general welfare clause" doesn't exist as such, and that fact is quite clear in both a textual analysis and reviewing any historical documents concerning that very question. The only powers the government has are those which are specifically enumerated. Having a "carte Blanche" clause makes no sense in context of limiting the powers of government. The commerce clause is also quite specific in it's powers. It was not intended as a "Carte Blanche" clause either.

To reprise one of our forbearers, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” From this statement one can conclude that there are some things the founding fathers left to the interpretations of future generations concerning the application of the Constitution.
If we remove the limits on government power then that will be our suicide. The founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be changed by "interpretation" or why would they have included a mechanism within the constitution to change it. If the government requires a power then the amendment process exists to give them that power without destroying, twisting and perverting the the very foundation of our society ie: the constitution. Your demonstrably wrong "theory" of the constitution, while popular, is the basis of the problems we face, and no matter how much we continue to pervert the constitution, it will never be enough to correct the problem.

That's absurd. The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning. The reason so many supreme court decisions exist isn't to clarify the powers of government but usurp powers that clearly were not included.

How interesting that you conclude that every Supreme Court Justice from John Jay, who was a delegate and elected President of Continental Congress before being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia either haven’t the intellect of a grade school student or are attempting usurp power.

Such a broad generalization certainly causes one to wonder about the source of that generalization.

The questions arising typically aren't actual questions but attempts to twist the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

Again, do you not find it amazing that all of those learned men, some of whom were contributors to the Constitution, could be involved in twisting the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

The preamble does not carry the weight of law.

So you maintain that part of the document is not law, but part is? Some one might term such a pick-and-choose interpretation as twisting the meaning of plain text. Are not the words “ordain and establish” legal terms? Are these words not in the Preamble? It would seem to me that if any of the Constitution is law, it, all, is law unless specifically so specified within the document, itself. I found nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Preamble is excepted from the status of the rest of the document.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't exist as such, and that fact is quite clear in both a textual analysis and reviewing any historical documents concerning that very question.

It is a minor point, but there is no "general welfare clause", merely, a phrase in the Preamble. You will note that I did not refer to any such thing as a “clause.” Additionally, you may have also noted that I referred to specifically enumerated powers elsewhere in the Constitution in addition to the “general welfare phrase” from the Preamble.

The only powers the government has are those which are specifically enumerated. Having a "carte Blanche" clause makes no sense in context of limiting the powers of government. The commerce clause is also quite specific in it's powers. It was not intended as a "Carte Blanche" clause either.

It would seem that there is a difference of interpretation of the “specifically enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Whether you agree, or not, there are numerous court cases over disputes about, exactly, what is the “clear meaning,” and, exactly, what are the “specifically enumerated powers.” My point is not that I necessarily agree with the outcomes of some of those cases, but that there are apparently, well founded, and sincere disagreements. You and I may not agree with the resolutions of some of these cases, but it one of those “coercive powers” of government that settles disagreements.

If we remove the limits on government power then that will be our suicide.

Believe it, or not, I actually agree with your point. Where I disagree is where those limits actually are.

The founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be changed by "interpretation" or why would they have included a mechanism within the constitution to change it.

On the contrary, they did. It is called the judicial branch. History records some rather famous disagreements over this topic, notably among Washington, Jay, Jefferson, Jackson and others. However, the issue is now a “settled” one as the lawyers are fond of saying. Again, while you and I may disagree with those interpretations, it still boils down to individual citizens ceding that “coercive power” to government to settle disputes.

If the government requires a power then the amendment process exists to give them that power without destroying, twisting and perverting the very foundation of our society ie: the constitution.

I could not agree more. However, once again, as noted above, it still boils down to individual citizens ceding that “coercive power” to government to settle disputes. The courts of the land have the authority to interpret the law of the land inclusive of the US Constitution. If you do not agree with their interpretations, it is specifically your right to petition your representatives to exercise their authority under Article I, section 7 and Article III, section 2 to change the situation. Alternately, as you have already noted, the amendment process is also available to specifically change what is currently the situation to something more to your liking.

Your demonstrably wrong "theory" of the constitution, while popular, is the basis of the problems we face, and no matter how much we continue to pervert the constitution, it will never be enough to correct the problem.

First, let us be clear, it is not my theory of the Constitution. I had no part in inventing or developing it, only studying it.

Actually, I agree with you that some of the “interpretations,” especially in the last century, have been a “stretch” and rather far from the founders’ intent. Nonetheless, the situation is as we find it. As I have noted, there are mechanisms within the Constitution short of the amendment process to change the situation, if those who disagree can muster the requisite political will and power to make it so. Beyond that, you have also noted the amendment process… There are, now, 27 such amendments on record, so it safe to conclude that the process works.