Merged James Madison on Various Topics

[KingMerv00]

First you said:

It means that the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. That's all.

Then you 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.

Shouldn't you be dead set against those cases since the Supreme Court used the unenumerated power of review obtained in Marbury?

 

[Beerina]

When did James Madison become the voice of pure authority?

Perhaps you could point to the article in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to do this thing?



The "goodness" of the act doesn't have anything to do with whether it's constitutional or not, though people often accept rationalizations to that effect if it's something they like. Historically, of course, that is the problem, and why you create a government and grant it specific powers and none others in the first place.

In other words, if spending money for Objects of Benevolence (nice phrase ) is something The People want, they should amend the Constitution to allow for it. Right?

Right? I mean, it shouldn't be a problem to do this if everybody's on board, right?


Nobody wants a government to just assume new powers whenever the hell people get a warm and fuzzy. That hasn't...worked so well historically. But nobody cares. We live in a world of baboons who rationalize anything out of the way of their tunnel vision.

 

[Tricky]

Merging various threads that are nominally about James Madison and his relationship to present day events. Sorry for the mismash of posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Commerce Clause, or more variantly, the clause of people who should honestly-stop-nitpicking-at-every-act-because-they-are-ideologically-driven.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Commerce Clause, or more variantly, the clause of people who should honestly-stop-nitpicking-at-every-act-because-they-are-ideologically-driven.

I know it's very popular to ignore the Constitution these days and act like the federal government can do whatever it wants.
I'm going to continue to insist on enumerated powers, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

 

[skeptical]

I know it's very popular to ignore the Constitution these days and act like the federal government can do whatever it wants.
I'm going to continue to insist on enumerated powers, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

This entire discussion is actually quite silly in the context of foreign relations because the constitution explicitly gives authority for treaties with foreign powers to the executive branch and explicitly denies to states any power in this area.

Put quite simply, the executive can do almost anything they want in terms of allocating funds and troops in the furtherance of treaties and international agreements once those agreements have been ratified by the Senate. By virtue of our participation in the UN, the executive has the power to bind the US to provide aid and send troops for humanitarian purposes to such places and for such purposes as the executive deems are necessary in furtherance of said agreements.

There is simply nothing in the constitution that limits what the executive branch can do in support of the treaties power in Article II section 2.

I see arguments that are applicable to congressional powers perhaps, but none that are applicable to the treaties and commander in chief power of the executive branch in the case at hand. In fact, the arguments presented cut the other way, that the executive has this power but congress does not, so this supports the separation of powers doctrine as well as the enumerated powers doctrine since this power is explicitly granted to the executive branch.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In light of what I have read on Presidential powers, I agree with your assessment.

 

[Beerina]

That's a completely different topic (the constitutionality of the individual mandate) from the issue that the healthcare reform bill is bad because it's long and complex.

And on the threads on that issue, we're still waiting for someone to offer a feasible legal theory to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.

Now I thought the SC had ruled some time ago (20+ years) about some kind of national health care thing. And I admit I cannot find this case, but I definitely heard about it.

Mostly all we get is empty rhetoric like this:

Or with the concept of a free society.

When "free society" gets in the way of what people reeeeeeeeeeeealllllly wannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna jam down other peoples' throats, it becomes "empty rhetoric".


Freedom means freedom from government. Which is to say, people using the power of law to force ideas onto other people. Their Fine Ideas For Everybody To Obey Or Go To Jail can no longer be foisted on anyone. It is not about democracy per se.

And big changes should be done by supermajority because:

1. Many people want it, not just a brief 50.01%

2. Many people want it for a long time, several years minimum, while the amendment process works, to avoid transitory winds of populist rhetoric by demagogues. If it's a good idea, lots of people will think so, and will still think so 5 years down the road after people have had a night or a thousand to sleep on it.


We did not get to this point by any kind of amendment process, but rather by sophistry and changing our interpretation of things. Oddly, this is touted as a positive thing, though for the life of me I cannot fathom why*.




* Not true. Follow the money and power. The Constitution gets in the way, so re-interpret it as not forbidding laws you want to pass, even if it's ludicrous to think so in a historical context.

 

[drkitten]

Freedom means freedom from government. Which is to say, people using the power of law to force ideas onto other people. Their Fine Ideas For Everybody To Obey Or Go To Jail can no longer be foisted on anyone. It is not about democracy per se.

And also not especially about the US government, either. You'll notice the word "freedom" doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the constitution, and even the word "free" doesn't appear except in the sense of "free persons" (i.e. not slaves).

And there's a reason for that. The Founding Fathers had just tried a "freedom from government" approach under the articles of confederation, and it didn't work. So they deliberately created a much stronger government (i.e., deliberately restricted everyone's freedom, under your formulation) in the interests of getting stuff that people wanted and needed done.

The Founders had tried "a free society" and didn't like the result.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Don't you people know that historically Galileo and Madison were partners? I mean there is a long history of them teaming up and solving crimes. That was of course until Di Vince used a mind control ray on both of them and turned them to evil.

That was when Teddy Roosevelt had to team up with golden age Teddy Roosevelt and exile them into space. Even now, with the help of Lord Xenu, Madison and Galileo plot their revenge against the Earth.

Our only hope is that Cyber Lincoln, with the help of zombie Tesla, will be able to figure out a way to stop them using the lab located in his Log Cabin of Solitute at the North Pole.

I think you've given me the setting for my next RPG campaign. Thanks!

 

[stevea]

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.

Such illogic ! A party who later has no interest in a matter due to death, therefore has no opinion worthy of hearing when he did have an interest ? If that's the case they we can throw away all of literature from deceases authors. Such rubbish thinking.

The Constitution is actually a very crisply and precisely written document in most regards. There are exceptions, but few. What is clear is that partisans from one sort or another have a strong preference for distortion and taking the language out of context.

Commerce is defined very much as today, "The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations". If YOU need a $3 dictionary to parse the constitution it says a lot about your education. There several mispellings and archaic spellings in the Constitution, but nothing a bright 8th grader can't parse without assistance.

"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.

Hogwash - your lack of clear thinking and inability to parse basic language isn't a counterargument. You cannot make any reasoned case that sending general aid to a country represents "commerce" in any form. For trade/commerce there must be a quid pro quo and here there is none. It's absolutely, positively not commerce.

If OTOH the US Gov't decided it needed a source of coffee from the Carribean and created laws to advantage Haitian coffee plantation enterprises that would represent regulation of commerce.

 

[Galileo]

And also not especially about the US government, either. You'll notice the word "freedom" doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the constitution, and even the word "free" doesn't appear except in the sense of "free persons" (i.e. not slaves).

And there's a reason for that. The Founding Fathers had just tried a "freedom from government" approach under the articles of confederation, and it didn't work. So they deliberately created a much stronger government (i.e., deliberately restricted everyone's freedom, under your formulation) in the interests of getting stuff that people wanted and needed done.

The Founders had tried "a free society" and didn't like the result.

Meanwhile, in England in the 1790s and 1810s, the British people scoffed at the American's weak central government, where it was well known that the US congress had much less power than the English parliment.

 

[drkitten]

Meanwhile, in England in the 1790s and 1810s, the British people scoffed at the American's weak central government, where it was well known that the US congress had much less power than the English parliment.

True, but not especially relevant. Which I admit is a step up from your usual drivel.

Yes, the US Federal government is less powerful than the British Parliament. It is indeed still less powerful than the British Parliament; it cannot, on its own authority, amend its founding document, for example. (To amend the unwritten British constitution requires only an act of Parliament requiring only a simple majority; to amend the US constitution requires a supermajority in Congress and the consent of the States.)

So what? The founders had experience with the British system and didn't like it. They also had experience with the still weaker system under the Articles of Confederation, and didn't like it either, which is why they rewrote the new Constitution to hit the Goldilocks zone in between.

That's not the same as the "freedom from government" drivel. The simple fact is that a weaker central executive has been tried and failed; the Constitution was written to strengthen the Fed, not to weaken it.

 

[dudalb]

A great many Libertarians are at least honest about wanting to go back to the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Galileo]

A great many Libertarians are at least honest about wanting to go back to the Articles of Confederation.

The AoC were debunked by the Federalist Papers. They were also debunked by Madison's 'Vices of the Confederation' and 'Republics; Ancient and Modern'. If you are going to go back the AoC, why stop there? Why not go back to the Articles of Association of 1774? Or do you support the strong central government set up by the AoC?

Or why stop with the Articles of Association? Why not go back to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765? Or to the Albany Conference of 1754?

 

[Galileo]

True, but not especially relevant. Which I admit is a step up from your usual drivel.

Yes, the US Federal government is less powerful than the British Parliament. It is indeed still less powerful than the British Parliament; it cannot, on its own authority, amend its founding document, for example. (To amend the unwritten British constitution requires only an act of Parliament requiring only a simple majority; to amend the US constitution requires a supermajority in Congress and the consent of the States.)

So what? The founders had experience with the British system and didn't like it. They also had experience with the still weaker system under the Articles of Confederation, and didn't like it either, which is why they rewrote the new Constitution to hit the Goldilocks zone in between.

That's not the same as the "freedom from government" drivel. The simple fact is that a weaker central executive has been tried and failed; the Constitution was written to strengthen the Fed, not to weaken it.

The Constitution has several improvements over Parliament:

* regular elections

* regular term of office

* delegated powers

This kept the people free from the central government for the most part until 1913.

 

[Galileo]

A great many Libertarians are at least honest about wanting to go back to the Articles of Confederation.

You have been reading too many of the nutjobs on lewrockwell.com

 

[drkitten]

The Constitution has several improvements over Parliament:

* regular elections

* regular term of office

* delegated powers

This kept the people free from the central government for the most part until 1913.

Oh, you were doing so well for a while. You had managed to achieve right-but-irrelevant for every sentence except for the last one.

If you really think that people were "free from the central government" in the 19th century, visit Gettysburg battlefield.

Basically, you're back to both-wrong-and-irrelevant. Your usual MO.

 

[Galileo]

Oh, you were doing so well for a while. You had managed to achieve right-but-irrelevant for every sentence except for the last one.

If you really think that people were "free from the central government" in the 19th century, visit Gettysburg battlefield.

Basically, you're back to both-wrong-and-irrelevant. Your usual MO.

What if you didn't live in PA?

 

[Tricky]

I think you've given me the setting for my next RPG campaign. Thanks!

Do not threaten violence on the forums, especially with dangerous weapons like Rocket Propelled Grenades...

(Huh? It IS? Oh, well that's very different.)

Never mind