Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
August
(35)
- I LOVE This Graph: The US Dollar Since 1800
- END THE FED
- Quote - Stephan Kinsella
- Michael Badnarik on The Constitution
- British MEP Daniel Hannan on Reason
- HILARIOUS: The Government Can!
- History of Chinese Currency: The Continual Failure...
- Quote - Voltaire
- Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell On Obamacare
- Tom Woods @ the Ron Paul BBQ
- Ron Paul on Anderson Cooper
- Run Rand Run
- Government's Gone Postal
- Rand Paul For Senate 2010
- Schiff on Buffett, Health Care Costs, and the Chin...
- Hey There Obama (Drink the Kool Aid)
- Tobias on the Cancellation of Arrested Development
- Renae Mitchel From C4L Nails It
- "UPS and Fedex are doing just fine, it's the post ...
- Obama Approval Index
- Krugman Owned By Canadians
- Protecting The Right To Bear Arms
- The Spirit of the Founders
- Rand Paul Fundraiser in NYC
- Douche-Bag Host Bullies Schiff
- Schiff on Morning Joe
- The 2 Dr. Pauls
- Judge Napolitano's Passionate Speech in Ohio on Au...
- Ron Paul: "Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor"
- "I Regret That I Voted To Send Our Troops To Iraq ...
- Peter Schiff
- Rand Paul
- Happy One-Year Anniversary To Us
- The Hypocritical Smiley Face
- Soldier Asks Senator For Apology For Violating Her...
-
▼
August
(35)
15 comments:
Wow, what a retard. He obviously doesn't understand that it is Congress that is legislating health care, not the executive.
I don't think he is misunderstanding anything.
Yes, yes he is. Health care is legislated by Congress, not the president. He has therefore made a retarded statement.
Oh yeah, I watched it again and read the constitution. It says nothing about Congress not being able to legislate health care. NOTING. He is a retard.
Congress can only legislate within the power enumerated to them in Article 1 Section 8.
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
Anyway, the limitations on Congress say nothing about social legislation and Post Offices are definitely a socialist power.
So is government control of currency. The constitution isn't perfect.
The power to legislate health care is not granted to congress in the constitution.
Yup, it would be completely hypocritical for someone to argue that post offices are okay, but public schools not. The founders basically said, when they wrote "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;", is that socialist legislation is okay if commerce can not implement a communal good. Post offices and public education are communal goods. The judiciary is therefore right for interpreting it so..
The constitution is not perfect. "Thomas Jefferson, somewhat prophetically, feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money, and expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility."
"The constitution is not perfect."
Please, Josh, cut the double-back crap. It won't work on me. Ron Paul and you ramble on about how good the constitution and "liberty' is, but then you hypocritically turn around and reject the bits of the original document that you don't like.
"Thomas Jefferson, somewhat prophetically, feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money, and expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility."
Well, it doesn't matter, eh! Because the fucking state is a government and the federal government is a state. BOTH CAN BECOME TYRANNICAL! And history proves this so. Ancient Greece was a history of small states BECOMING tyrannical. This PROVES that the small states argument that Ron Paul makes is erroneous. Either he doesn't know the history of Ancient Greece and Rome, or he is being disingenuous...
But in the end he endorsed it. Why did the federalization of the postal service? Because for the postal service to work efficiently and correctly on a continental scale it needed to be coordinated and funded on the federal level. Health is the same. Even those who are insured are being screwed over and 50 million are uninsured. The private system is good for certain things, but not health care. It is too expensive for any one state to provide for its citizens properly (except, perhaps, for New York and California (when the economy was good)), and the economies of scale of a socialized system would make it even cheaper..
"Please, Josh, cut the double-back crap. It won't work on me. Ron Paul and you ramble on about how good the constitution and "liberty' is, but then you hypocritically turn around and reject the bits of the original document that you don't like."
Ron Paul references the constitution because the constitution is the contract between the people (or states) and the federal government; the congress often passes new laws that violate this contract. In such a case, arguing that because the constitution allows postal roads, it therefore allows for all government programs does not hold up. It specifically allows for postal roads. If it was meant to allow for public education, it would have specifically authorized that power.
This doesn't mean Paul nor I need to support that section, but we cannot complain that the government is running a postal service (that lost 2 billion dollars over the past 3 months) because it is within the rule of law. I'm pretty certain Paul would support an amendment that would remove that section, but probably would not support a bill to remove that section as the bill would be unconstitutional.
He'll make the same argument for the prohibition of drugs. He's not for prohibiting drugs, but at least in the 20s the congress followed the constitution to pass an amendment. Now they just pass a bill and ignore the constitution.
The constitution is not perfect. Its not a living document either. It says what it means and it means what it says. The law is not something to be interpreted; actions are to be interpreted to determine if they are within the rule of law.
"Ron Paul references the constitution because the constitution is the contract between the people (or states) and the federal government; the congress often passes new laws that violate this contract. In such a case, arguing that because the constitution allows postal roads, it therefore allows for all government programs does not hold up. It specifically allows for postal roads. If it was meant to allow for public education, it would have specifically authorized that power."
Nope. Time changes the needs of society, and the founders knew it. That is why they wrote judicial review and Congrressional legislation into the constitution. The Constitution is a living document, not a document set in stone. The Postal Service provision thus makes all social programs constitutional if Congress legislates them into existence.
"This doesn't mean Paul nor I need to support that section, but we cannot complain that the government is running a postal service (that lost 2 billion dollars over the past 3 months) because it is within the rule of law. I'm pretty certain Paul would support an amendment that would remove that section, but probably would not support a bill to remove that section as the bill would be unconstitutional."
True, because it is a constitutional provision, which has greater protection than legislation. However, the Postal provision is PART of the constitution, and hence when Congress passes a social legislation bill, the judiciary can consider that bill constitutional, because the Postal Service provision is also constitutional. The reasoning that allowed the founders to add it to the constitution is sound, and warranted.
"Nope. Time changes the needs of society, and the founders knew it. That is why they wrote judicial review and Congrressional legislation into the constitution."
Nope. Thats why they allowed for amendments, so that any changes to the constitution would have to be ratified by a majority of the states. Congress is limited by section 1 article 8.
"The Constitution is a living document, not a document set in stone. The Postal Service provision thus makes all social programs constitutional if Congress legislates them into existence."
The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution needs to be interpreted. That you can extrapolate your own meaning from it, like a piece of art. Not that you can change it. Of course you can change it, that's what article V is for. That the founders worked in the power to the congress to build post offices and postal roads is not legal authority to congress to legislate other social programs. You might be able to take from this power that some of the founders did support the "socialization" of certain services, however the postal service is the only written into law. If congress wants to give itself additional powers beyond that explicitly written in Article 1 Section 8, then they need pass an amendment.
"True, because it is a constitutional provision, which has greater protection than legislation. However, the Postal provision is PART of the constitution, and hence when Congress passes a social legislation bill, the judiciary can consider that bill constitutional, because the Postal Service provision is also constitutional. The reasoning that allowed the founders to add it to the constitution is sound, and warranted."
The social legislation bill would not be considered constitutional because they are legislating to themselves powers not granted in the constitution. They need to pass an amendment. The congress derives its powers from the states (as the constitution is a contract between the states and the feds), which is why amendments need to be ratified by the states. Otherwise Article V would serve no purpose.
The reason the founders were able to add it to the constitution was because the state representatives agreed to include it at the time the constitution was written. From that point forward, the constitution was law and any changes need to be passed via Article V.
"Nope. Thats why they allowed for amendments, so that any changes to the constitution would have to be ratified by a majority of the states. Congress is limited by section 1 article 8."
Kinda weird that they would allow Congress to legislate, but have nothing for them to legislate! Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the judiciary was put there to judge the constitutionality of various new legislation. Amendments are merely a stronger form of legislation.
"The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution needs to be interpreted. That you can extrapolate your own meaning from it, like a piece of art. Not that you can change it. Of course you can change it, that's what article V is for.""
That's very nice, because they also allowed Congress to legislate, to pass laws.
"The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution needs to be interpreted. That you can extrapolate your own meaning from it, like a piece of art. Not that you can change it. Of course you can change it, that's what article V is for."
Yes it is. It is called precedence. The constitution is NOT a black-and-white document that is supposed to be followed to the letter. Instead, it is a document THAT SAYS the judiciary, the Supreme Court is the interpreter of what is constitutional and not. The Justices have not struck down social programs because the Post Roads are of the same class.
"The social legislation bill would not be considered constitutional because they are legislating to themselves powers not granted in the constitution. They need to pass an amendment. The congress derives its powers from the states (as the constitution is a contract between the states and the feds), which is why amendments need to be ratified by the states. Otherwise Article V would serve no purpose."
No, you are wrong again. Article 4 definitely does serve a purpose. Social legislation could be made unconstitutional if an amendment were passed by the required number of states. Inversely, social legislation could be made non-interpretatively constitutional if an amendment were passed stating it is constitutional. As it stands now, the social legislation is constitutional based on similar social legislation being included in the original document.
"The reason the founders were able to add it to the constitution was because the state representatives agreed to include it at the time the constitution was written. From that point forward, the constitution was law and any changes need to be passed via Article V."
Yes, and those same states allowed the building of the postal network for OBVIOUS REASONS, thus making social legislation constitutional by judicial review.
"Kinda weird that they would allow Congress to legislate, but have nothing for them to legislate!"
Yep, being a congressman was only to be a part-time job, not a career.
"Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the judiciary was put there to judge the constitutionality of various new legislation."
Yes, but they're not always right.
"Amendments are merely a stronger form of legislation.'
Amendments are how you change the law. If you don't like the constitution; if you don't like that it doesn't grant the government power to provide a national health care system, you need to amend the constitution to provide that power.
"That's very nice, because they also allowed Congress to legislate, to pass laws. "
Within the powers provided by article 1 section 8. Anything more is an assumption of power that the people did not provide.
"The constitution is NOT a black-and-white document that is supposed to be followed to the letter. Instead, it is a document THAT SAYS the judiciary, the Supreme Court is the interpreter of what is constitutional and not."
The constitution is black and white. Law is always black and white. That the supreme court can interpret what is constitutional and is not is an acknowledgment that their is a black and white definition of what it is to be constitutional. The problem is that, what you really meant was that you think the judiciary is there not to interpret if an action is constitutional, but you think the constitution is there to be interpreted by judges. If this is so, then there is no law, there is no point to having a constitution. Fortunately, the constitution is very easy for the common man to read and understand; its so simple and straight forward that the people can recognize when the courts are not fulfilling their obligation to the people.
"Social legislation could be made unconstitutional if an amendment were passed by the required number of states"
No need, the government was never provided the power to legislate social programs in the first place.
"non-interpretatively constitutional"
Lol, as if interpretatively constitutional exists.
"As it stands now, the social legislation is constitutional based on similar social legislation being included in the original document."
Thats an assumption of power that was not authorized. Law is black and white.
"Yes, and those same states allowed the building of the postal network for OBVIOUS REASONS, thus making social legislation constitutional by judicial review."
If social legislation was constitutional, the constitution would have included text that directly authorizes this power, as it does with anything else. Inference and interpretation is not required to understand the constitution.
Post a Comment