Merged James Madison on Various Topics

KingMerv00 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah. You're just talking about the fact that, over time, we've expanded the scope of each of the enumerated powers to cover more stuff.
I agree with you, but the fact that SCOTUS has liberally construed many of the enumerated powers doesn't change the fact that the powers ARE enumerated and that, if you can't fit it under one of the existing powers, you don't get it.
I don't see any caselaw that would support stretching the Foreign Commerce Clause nearly as far out of shape as joobz is trying to, and in the absence of such caselaw, the default position (no power exists) is maintained.

ETA: I'll also note that right now federal powers are in something of a decline, since the Rehnquist court repeatedly struck down laws as exceeding Congress's authority and there's no indication that the Roberts court will change this trend.
 
Last edited:
David Wong said:
Awesome moving of the goal posts, Avalon! I can't even see them any more.
Click to expand...

When could you see them in the first place? Wouldn't you have to have been close to the discussion at some point?
Great heckling. Keep this up, and you can successfully not contribute to even more threads!

ETA: Non sequitur: Are you actually the author of John Dies at the End? If so, I adored the version of that I saw online some years back. You're an excellent writer.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
You did move the goalposts though.
Click to expand...

I don't really feel I did, but maybe I did without realizing it. If so, please explain. Here's my understanding.
When I entered the thread, it was asserting the idea that the federal government is of limited powers, and that the Constitution does not seem to support the federal government having the power to give foreign aid.
Joobz gave the Foreign Commerce Clause as the location of the federal government's power to do this, and so I asked him to explain that and provide caselaw.
It seems like I set the goalposts pretty far out to begin with; where did I move them from here?
 
I am not a lawyer and cannot point to case law. It doesn't seem much of a stretch at all to me to see benefit of our economic status by aiding fellow nations. Further, it seems to our benefit and national well being to participate in a cooperative manner with all nations.

Do you believe that use of military aide in haiti is also unconstitutional?
 
joobz said:
I am not a lawyer and cannot point to case law. It doesn't seem much of a stretch at all to me to see benefit of our economic status by aiding fellow nations. Further, it seems to our benefit and national well being to participate in a cooperative manner with all nations.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. It appears to me that this issue involves less stretching of the commerce clause than does the creation of the Civil Rights Act. Congress only has to show a "rational basis" connection to commerce and that seems easy enough to do. After all, goodwill can be a serious commercial asset.

I doubt there is much if any case law since this issue doesn't seem to have been challenged in court. In the absence of precedent, we can only guess at what the Supreme Court would decide. If I were a Justice I'd favor Congress simply because the Supreme Court is supposed to show deference to Congress in these matters.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I'm still unclear what "of limited powers" means in this context.
Click to expand...

It means that the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. That's all.
Perhaps there is a legitimate case to be made for foreign aid under the Foreign Commerce Clause. As has been pointed out, the Commerce Clause (in its four pieces) has been stretched pretty far.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You are confused. No one cited Upchurch as an authority to be obeyed forever. Heck, he's not even dead yet.

And no one suggested we ignore the wisdom of the founding fathers. We just question you citing Madison's words and applying them to 21st Century issues as if they were topically relevant and somehow inerrant on issues Madison couldn't possibly foresee.
Click to expand...

This counter seems lame. I think Madison could be considered an expert in the Constitution and certainly much more in touch with the original intent than anyone alive today. The quote shows his concern on an issue which is identical to that today; can US Gov money and assets be used for the benefit of other nations.

The dumass view that things are fundamentally different in the 21st century is little more than another in a long line of glib excuses to ignore, bypass and subvert the Constitution, without using the clearly outlined method of amendment.

I have no problem allowing *some* tax money to go to such "rescue" efforts, but we should have an amendment to define when, how, how much is involved.

Having said that, we shouldn't try to be either policemen of the world nor fire&rescue of the world.
 
stevea said:
I have no problem allowing *some* tax money to go to such "rescue" efforts, but we should have an amendment to define when, how, how much is involved.
Click to expand...

???

You mean, like, actual dollar amounts? In a constitutional amendment?
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'm with you there. It appears to me that this issue involves less stretching of the commerce clause than does the creation of the Civil Rights Act. Congress only has to show a "rational basis" connection to commerce and that seems easy enough to do. After all, goodwill can be a serious commercial asset.

I doubt there is much if any case law since this issue doesn't seem to have been challenged in court. In the absence of precedent, we can only guess at what the Supreme Court would decide. If I were a Justice I'd favor Congress simply because the Supreme Court is supposed to show deference to Congress in these matters.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your argument, but it it's not reasonable to claim that spending billions helping a nation with a <$7Bln GDP has any rational basis in commerce. Sadly you/others are trying to stretch and distort Constitutional clauses to meet personal goals.

I have nothing against the immediate humanitarian effort, and even paying for it w/ tax money, but let's not make a vice into a virtue. We should make a proper mechanism for this.
 
stevea said:
This counter seems lame. I think Madison could be considered an expert in the Constitution and certainly much more in touch with the original intent than anyone alive today.
Click to expand...

Madison doesn't have to live with the consequences of his intent so I think his opinion is less important than any living person.

The Constitution was vaguely written so he shouldn't be surprised that people interpreted it to mean many different things. If the founders wanted us to follow the letter of the Constitution, they should have written it that way. They could have explicitly defined "commerce", but chose not to.
 
stevea said:
I appreciate your argument, but it it's not reasonable to claim that spending billions helping a nation with a <$7Bln GDP has any rational basis in commerce. Sadly you/others are trying to stretch and distort Constitutional clauses to meet personal goals.
Click to expand...

"Rational basis" as used in legal circles is essentially a blank check to Congress. To fail the rational basis test, you have to go completely off the wall. Not that it matters. Our opinions are just opinions. Until it is challenged in court, it is presumed constitutional.

"Commerce" was not defined in the Constitution. Madison dropped the ball I guess.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
"Rational basis" as used in legal circles is essentially a blank check to Congress. To fail the rational basis test, you have to go completely off the wall.
Click to expand...

Apparently, there is no "rational basis" for Congress to forbid carrying a gun into a school zone, nor for Congress to forbid domestic violence. So, the "blank check" isn't exactly blank; there are real limits.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Apparently, there is no "rational basis" for Congress to forbid carrying a gun into a school zone, nor for Congress to forbid domestic violence. So, the "blank check" isn't exactly blank; there are real limits.
Click to expand...

I was careful to say that there were limits so you won't catch me moving the goalposts. In fact, I agree with the court's decisions in US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison. To me, they count as an "off the wall" uses of the commerce clause.
 
Last edited:
FlamingMoe said:
Well, since there's a perfectly good way to amend the Constitution, neither do we!
Click to expand...

Good idea. Draft one that clearly defines "regulate" and "commerce" since they screwed up the first time.

While you are at it, fix all of the other unclear things too. Like what the hell do "liberty" and "due process" mean? How about "advise and consent"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom