Constitution- Who Cares?

The American Partisan ^ | 1/31/02 | James Antle III

[Texas Gal]

Would the policy have teeth? (Be enforceable by law?) If the law were Constitutional, there would be no problem.

[dubyajames]

Methinks that "jargon and slogan" is your jargon and slogan, as that is your response to every statement or question. You made inaccurate points with regard to police protection, weights and measures and other issues and were asked valid questions regarding these inaccuracies. You chose not to respond to them, but only to pose your own question in return and dismiss everything you disagree with as "jargon and slogan."

[dubyajames]

I find you in an inconsistency here. First, you assert that all sorts of essential functions being performed by the federal government, ranging from agricultural policy to law enforcement, would end and be pushed back to the state governments that are incapable of performing them if we adhered to the Constitution. Second, you assert that the federal government already adheres to the Constitution, as evidenced by the fact that "conservatives" control the House of Representatives.

Well, which is it? If the federal government is already following the Constitution to the letter, then no government policies would be interrupted. Please actually explain this rather than dismissing this observation as jargon and slogan.

[Wurlitzer]

"Don’t you just love all the folks who define freedom as a license from the government"

You've got that right verboten. The alleged "LincolnDefender" does not address all the things the government has done wrong prior to 9/11 and post 9/11.

While he has no problem with the trampling of the 4th amendment for US citizens can he defend the US Immigration service, FBI, CIA, NSA that were the real failures leading up to 9/11?

In typical government fashion, don't go after the group (I am speaking within the USA)of people we know are less than supportive of the USA but screw the rights of US Citizens.

I pray to God there is no Allah for if there is, Allah is one evil deity.

[Jasper]

LincolnDefender

The screen name pretty much says it all.

[THEUPMAN]

What isn't interstate about agriculture?

It is only interstate if it crosses from the jurisdiction of one state to another (thus the term "interstate"). Agriculture in all its aspects should not be enveloped by the commerce clause simply because some product might cross state lines.
Do you really contend that the intrusion by the government has enabled better markets or products?

[FReethesheeples]

Mega-bump!!!!

[FReethesheeples]

Mega-bump!!!!

[Dick Bachert]

OVER HERE
(Tune: WWI ditty "Over There")

Over here, over here,
freedom's gone, we are doomed over here.
For the feds are winning, the Founders spinning
in their graves, I hear them over here.

Over here, over here,
We are taxed to the max over here.
Bureaucrats are feeding, taxpayers bleeding
Like bone dry turnips over here.

Over here, over here,
Schools produce all those sheep over here.
From the bull they're hearing, they love the shearing,
And line up, smiling, over here.

Over here, over here,
Solons buy all those votes over here.
With the sheeples' money and think it's funny
And know they're always in the clear.

Over here, over here,
Don't resist they insist over here.
IRS is comin', your books they'll summon
For audit, lookin' up your rear.

Over here, over here,
ATF comin' in over here.
With their guns a blazin', with tanks they're razin'
That house, those kids they're gonna sear.

Over here, over here,
DEA fightin' drugs over here.
Bill of Rights in tatters, not that it matters
To folks with cable and a beer.
For it's over, I know it's over,
For my kids I'll weep, 'cause it's over over here.

(Permission granted to use if credit given to author, Dick “Mr. Sunshine” Bachert)

[Kevin Curry]

Joe Average does good to be able to spell the word constitution, let alone have a rational thought about its meaning and purpose.

Most constitutionalists or libertarians of similar bent that I have come across have at best a comic book quality of understanding of the Constitution. They like to puff and preen over their allegedly vast "true-believer" knowledge, but in truth they all mangle and force that grand document into narrow, cramped pigeonholes of their own biases and prejudices.

People who fairly understand the Constitution are very rare indeed.

[Michael_S]

There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course.

Good point. This is about the same question the United States Supreme Court asked the Florida Supreme Court regarding the recounts. I think it went someting like - What Florida law(s) did you refer to when making your decision? Not one of the eight morons could answer it.

[tacticalogic]

It is only interstate if it crosses from the jurisdiction of one state to another (thus the term "interstate"). Agriculture in all its aspects should not be enveloped by the commerce clause simply because some product might cross state lines. Do you really contend that the intrusion by the government has enabled better markets or products?

According to their writings, the founders included the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution to allow the federal government to keep the states from engaging in trade wars. They never intended the federal government to have controlling authority over anything that could be bought or sold.

The interpretation of the commerce clause that is used today was developed by FDR, and was the basis for enabling Congress to implement the New Deal. Every federal law that is passed and every bureaucracy that is created under this theory of the commerce clause is a validation of FDR and his policies and doctrines.

[mvpel]

Did the government set standards for the size of light bulb sockets and electrical outlets? No? Then why do you think that roads would be different widths under private enterprise?

[Gumption]

I have repeatedly asked and not one of you have given a real concrete example. You asked me for an example and I gave you one, genetically altered seeds.

It's because you questions were faulty. For example, you asked :

When, where, how and why am I wrong about a need for many national policies on agriculture?

The question is not, or should not be, if a national policy on agriculture is needed. It's whether or not it's constitutional. Even if I agreed 100% about the need for a Federal Department of Agriculture to regulate anything, and everything, to do with agriculture, that doesn't mean it's therefor constitutional. Proving the NEED for a federal agency is only a good argument for attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that would grant the power to tax the citizenry in order to provide funding for the federal agency that you insist is so needed. If that Amendment passed, that federal power would be every bit as constitutional as the Army, Navy, or to coin money.

Want to answer any of the questions I asked you? Or will you just go on insisting that if you think it's a good idea, it's therefor constitutional?

[tacticalogic]

FDR's novel theory on the meaning of the commerce clause was little more than a means to an end. The desired end was to grant the federal government powers and authority that it had not previously wielded without being burdened with have to get a constitutional amendment to authorize it. Regardless of ends it was used for, the fact remains that supporting this policy means supporting creative semantics as an acceptable substitute for public debate, vote and ratification of amendment. If that's conservative, then we should be really impressed with Clinton's defense strategy of arguing over the definition of "is".

[Unbeliever]

When they were employed by the airlines, your argument would not have washed, because the Constitution only limits the government, not a private entity like an airline. But now that they're officially feral employees, I do believe that you are correct.

No you're wrong, even pre federalization of airport security these clowns were enforcing federal regulations even with previously less intrusive warrantless searches. No government agency can legitimately authorize anyone else to engage in activity they have no authority to engage in. For example you can loan out your car to a friend but you have no legitimate authority to loan out your neighbors' car.

[Magician]

One example in the field I work in, just to shoot you down:

Where does it say in the Contsitution or in the enabling acts of the FDA that the FDA has right to approve or disapprove medical equipment? This is a right that the beaurocrats of the FDA have take upon themselves.

Most of the violations of our Constitution are not only violations of that document, they are violations of the acts that established the government agency making the rules that are the violations.

We have an out of control, self feeding, metastasizing government that functions with NO concept of the Constitution.

By the way, the type of extra-Constitutional growth of government described above has occured under both Democrats and Republicans, without visible distinction. Only the Libertarians clearly see what is happening.