Replies

The Constitution sets enumerated limits of the powers of Congress, to set public policy through its enactments of "public law", not to fullfill, the aspirations of Ruml's or any socialist's desires.

Ruml wasnt wishing, he was reporting on things as they were --and are as far as I can tell. As Ruml infers, public policy trumps the Constitution. Take a look at U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 or Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357. Quoting the later case:

"All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. The limits set to property by other public interests present themselves as a branch of what is called the police power of the state."

Other examples of public policy trumping the constitution include gun laws, nonconvertable money, standing armies, siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933, the list goes on.

As I said, I am seeking wisdom only here, and I will learn from you if I can.

As Ruml infers, public policy trumps the Constitution.
"All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme."

I don't recall Ruml ever being crowned king.

The Constitutution, limits and set the bounds of public law/policy.

The legislative power of Congress provides the Public Law, that is policy.

Obviously you must be reading one of them new "living" Constitutions, not the Constitution for the United States of America."

Other examples of public policy trumping the constitution include gun laws, nonconvertable money, standing armies, siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933, the list goes on.

Standing armies?

Appropriations for the military are passed every two years, per the Constitution. No other restriction is laid therein. However, in times of peace and lack of threat, the founding fathers felt that standing armies should be discouraged. Tell me under the current state of affairs, with the time to respond to nuclear way measured in minutes, are we in such a condition that a standing army is not needed, even in the sight of the founding fathers? I think not. Furthermore show me where a standing army funded every two years is prohibited by the Constitution.

siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933:

Grandma's gold coins were not "seized". Said coins were allowed to be kept by their owners as collection pieces. They just ceased to be legal tender per-se and folks were encourage to turn them in for paper money, if they intended to spend those coins. Having said that, FDR's and the Congress' actions to kill precious metal coinage was attrocious, but not prohibited under the Constitution. And the chicanery used to scare people out of their gold coins was attrocious and someones head should have roled for that abuse of office. Namely FDR.

gun laws?

Perhaps you will provide us with an example of a Federal gun law that you consider to be unconstitutional so we can examine it. Most statutes concerning such are state, not federal and most if not all are actually in accord with the particular state's constitution. If you know of any otherwise, please be specific so it can be reviewed, and provide a link to applicable state constitutions regarding the right to keep and bear arms, so we can see what is going on.

nonconvertable money?

Please show the requirement, on Congress, to provide for a convertibility of paper notes to gold from the coffers of the U.S. treasury. Paper can very clearly be converted to metal coinage at the election of whoever possesses such paper. And such paper notes can be used in trade to aquire any desired amount of bullion or collectors gold. Either can be used in trade with no restriction other than agreement between all parties of the trade. Please provide something specific that it can be evaluated.

the list goes on.

What list, be specific and provide actual examples that can be evaluated and measured against the enumerated powers of the "Constitution for the United States of America."

Your mere assertion in these matters demands an actual review to determine what you think you are talking about. All I read, thus far is your personal uncritical opinion that such things are true.

As I said, I am seeking wisdom only here, and I will learn from you if I can.

Why do I doubt that very much? And who am I to be setup as someone to learn from?

Seek your own wisdom, if wisdom is what you want, it is not to be found here.

I'll discuss things endlessly, but wisdom, truth? Hey no way am I a font of that, all I can do is research and point to the historical record concerning the constitution and the laws of this nation so others can make their own determinations.