Merged James Madison on Various Topics

joobz said:
I understand that, but it hasn't been demonstrated that such aide ISN'T within the listed powers. In particular Article 1 section 8.
Click to expand...

US Constitution said:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Click to expand...
Demonstrated. QED.
 
FlamingMoe said:
Demonstrated. QED.
Click to expand...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nation,



QED.
 
You're claiming that federal foreign aid falls under the Foreign Commerce Clause? Seriously?


ETA: I'll admit I'm a bit impressed that you didn't cite the Necessary and Proper clause.
 
Last edited:
FlamingMoe said:
How is giving money away a part of commercial trade?

It's not.

QEmotha-effinD
Click to expand...

nice try. giving "money away" and getting services back and pavinig the way for future trade agreements..... IS commerce.

ETA: world is flat as I'm sure you've heard.
 
joobz said:
nice try. giving "money away" and getting services back and pavinig the way for future trade agreements..... IS commerce.
Click to expand...
What service am I getting from Haiti in exchange for the relief money we are giving them?

It appears you're trying to torture the same infinite flexibility from "foreign commerce" that the now-bastardized "interstate commerce" clause experienced.
 
joobz said:
how is exchanging money for goods and services NOT commerce.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're almost there. I agree that:
1) (Exchanging money for goods and services) == Commerce
I also agree that:
2) Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce.
Now, prove that those two statements, plus any others you can prove, get you to:
Z) Congress has the power to provide monetary aid for foreign disaster relief.
... and you're done.

The problem is,
(monetary aid for foreign disaster relief) != (exchanging money for goods and services)
But you're welcome to arrive at the conclusion some other way. Just make sure to show your steps.
 
Cleon said:
Oh, like you've been?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, do you need me to provide the caselaw that confirms that the federal government is a government of limited powers? I thought we were clear on this point, but if you want it I'm sure I (or any other poster with any American legal or polisci background at all) can provide it.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm sorry, do you need me to provide the caselaw that confirms that the federal government is a government of limited powers? I thought we were clear on this point, but if you want it I'm sure I (or any other poster with any American legal or polisci background at all) can provide it.
Click to expand...

How about some caselaw showing that foreign aid is unconstitutional? Maybe a SCOTUS decision somewhere - seeing as how they'd be the ones making that determination?

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

(Cute attempt at condescension, btw. Pathetic, but cute.)
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm sorry, do you need me to provide the caselaw that confirms that the federal government is a government of limited powers?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Just about every court case since damn near forever has not treated the constitution the way you see it.

As proof I cite everything from Marbury v. Madison (HA! Madison!) to present. That's 207 years of legal precedent. Your turn.
 
Last edited:
My review of the Powers is the same as joobz: if Congress has it, it's almost certainly in the Foreign Commerce Clause. I've thus far not located the case law to back up how far the Clause has been extended -- but again, in the absence of (what would be, quite frankly, surprising) case law showing that the Clause can be stretched this far, it's pretty clearly outside the scope.
In practice, it appears that foreign aid has been kept under the President's foreign powers. Presidents since the Cold War have advocated foreign aid as an important part of the U.S. foreign policy.
None of the documents I've reviewed seem to have bothered with Constitutional back-up for this at all, but I assume if it exists that's where I'll actually find it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Just about every court case since damn near forever has not treated the constitution the way you see it.
Click to expand...

That's an affirmative claim. Are you going to back it up with anything?

ETA:
As proof I cite everything from Marbury onward.
Click to expand...
Okay. Cite the passage in Marbury that contradicts the notion that the federal government is a government of limited powers.
Especially since Marbury itself was a ruling that Congress had exceeded its authority and passed a law the Constitution gave it no authority to pass.
 
Last edited:
FlamingMoe said:
It appears you're trying to torture the same infinite flexibility from "foreign commerce" that the now-bastardized "interstate commerce" clause experienced.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched quite liberally, its flexibility is not infinite. Even today, SCOTUS strikes down Congressional laws that take it too far (Lopez being the flagship example).
 
AvalonXQ said:
Okay. Cite the passage in Marbury that contradicts the notion that the federal government is a government of limited powers.
Especially since Marbury itself was a ruling that Congress had exceeded its authority and passed a law the Constitution gave it no authority to pass.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by "government of limited powers"? I cited Marbury because the Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review which is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. All three branches of government have been "finding" things in the USC since day one.

If you still don't believe me, fine. I further cite every surviving New Deal program, the federal war on drugs, and the the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom