Replies

Let's not start playing words games that detract from the discussion. My point, which I though was quite clear, is that any decisions which expanded government's power, from the first supreme court (although I doubt you can find a decision from the first supreme court which expanded the power of government) until the current court, beyond those powers specifically enumerated, is blatantly unconstitutional. I wasn't calling any specific supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad nor was I calling all supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad. For that matter I wasn't calling the individuals who brought any cases to the supreme court stupid or power mad. After all justices don't make up cases to decide. That isn't to say that the general majority of "disputes" over the "meaning" of the constitution are intellectually dishonest conflicts with a very different motive then seeking clarity. Further, such decisions do not usually lead to a broad grant of power that doesn't exist in the text of the constitution.

However, for your statement to carry weight, the term, some, would actually have to be changed to a majority since that is what it takes to have a binding court decision. Now, it would seem that you are alleging that the majority of these learned individuals so lust for power that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest. Is this what you intended?
The term "some" doesn't logically lead to a majority of justices in total but a majority of justices that are sitting on the bench at the time they formulated an unconstitutional decision.

We the people of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You don’t find that these words confer power? Without them the rest of the document would be philosophically meaningless.
What power does it confer to government? I never stated the the preamble didn't have meaning just that it didn't confer any powers to government.

No appellate judge specifically decides cases so that he or she may be overturned on appeal (with the possible exception of the Ninth Circuit).
Quoted for humor

I would continue but it appears to me that you are shifting the discussion once again.
Your arguments are not so strong nor is your intellect so obviously superior that it justifies the consistent patronizing tone of your posts.

Sorry you find my tone patronizing.

No insult was intended. However, I think if you will check the posts, the vast majority of the insults on this thread have been directed at me, up to, and including, one poster referring to me as you socialist b*stards. Even you and I have previously had a little exchange over “juvenile” usages. Nonetheless, I bear no ill will toward any.

If you choose to terminate the discussion, that is certainly your option.

However, if you wish to continue, I will also, provided we can agree on the terms and methods of future debate.

I would continue but it appears to me that you are shifting the discussion once again

Please note that I have made every effort at clarity, In post #70, I completely reposted my original comments from post #14. In post #90. I attempted to summarize areas of agreement and disagreement.. In post # 95 I invited you to create your own summary if you disagreed with mine. I noted no such summary was forthcoming. I repeat and color code post excerpts to avoid confusion. Yet, you accuse me of trying to shift the discussion. Your charge seems a bit incongruous, to say the least.

Having said the preliminaries, I will respond to the major portion of your post as you have defined it.

(although I doubt you can find a decision from the first supreme court which expanded the power of government)

If you check your history, you will note that John Jay created the very first Supreme Court controversy by insisting that the court had the right of review of the legislative branch’s and executive branch’s actions for Constitutional compliance. The exchange was quite contentious.

My point, which I though was quite clear, is that any decisions which expanded government's power, from the first supreme court… until the current court, beyond those powers specifically enumerated, is blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem with your concern is four-fold.

First, some of the “powers” to which you refer not that distinctly defined to begin with and were made worse by some amendments, e.g., the 14th. For example, what exactly does it mean that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Is enforcing segregation denying such? In other considerations, executive privilege is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but has been claimed as an inherent power ever since Washington. There are, obviously, other possibilities which is why cases continue to come up.

Secondly, the world has changed a great deal. For example, when the Constitution was signed, there were no telephones or computers. Consequently, can you be content to give the government the authority to wiretap your conversations or search your hard drive at will because telephones or computers are not specifically mentioned as one of those things in which the citizen can be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures? In the 1790’s there was no way that toxic pollution from a plant in one state could possibly affect citizens in another state. There are probably hundreds of examples of things that could be brought up in this category, but I think you get the point.

Thirdly, there are dozens federal agencies to regulate and manage problems that could not have existed or, even, been envisioned in 1789. For example, the FAA provides for safe aviation transportation services and the FCC keeps interference from ruining everyone’s radio and TV signals.

Fourthly, the international situation is vastly different. How does Congress declare war on Al Queda, a non-state entity that has carried out the only successful, foreign power, mass casualty attack on the US mainland since the early 1800’s. What is the Federal government’s responsibility in controlling the commercial transfer of technology from private companies to potential enemies? During the 1790’s the international agreement on how far national boundaries extended into the sea was 3 miles (the range of a cannon shot). Today it is 200 miles, but the range of a missile or fighter is much further. What are the limits of sovereignty? International cartels exist (oil for example) that can cripple the US economy as well as our ability to defend our selves militarily.