Friday, August 21, 2009

Tom Woods @ the Ron Paul BBQ

15 comments:

Christopher said...

He's wrong and right. The states definitely do have the right to refuse to follow an unratified amendment, but Congress has the right to legislate new laws and it is the job of the Supreme Court TO INTERPRET whether that law or amendment is constitutional.

Christopher said...

These type of people want to think this way, because they know the founders disagreed with them when they instituted the judiciary as a interpreter and final judge on constitutional matters. They want to read the constitution exactly how it was written and ignore its INHERENT ability to change.

Josh said...

"Congress has the right to legislate new laws"

Within its powers as per Article 1 Section 8.

"it is the job of the Supreme Court TO INTERPRET whether that law or amendment is constitutional."

If its brought before them. But a law can be unconstitutional even if its not brought before the Supreme Court and even if they say it is constitutional. The supreme court is made up of men, and men are imperfect and corruptable. I can still say a law is unconstitutional even if 5 of 9 justices disagree with me. The great thing about the constitution is that it is very easy for ANYONE to read it and understand it.

"They want to read the constitution exactly how it was written and ignore its INHERENT ability to change."

They understand its inherent ability to change> the amendment process.

But there is no other inherent ability to change it.

Christopher said...

"Within its powers as per Article 1 Section 8."

Yup, and anything similar to those articles.

"If its brought before them. But a law can be unconstitutional even if its not brought before the Supreme Court and even if they say it is constitutional. The supreme court is made up of men, and men are imperfect and corruptable. I can still say a law is unconstitutional even if 5 of 9 justices disagree with me. The great thing about the constitution is that it is very easy for ANYONE to read it and understand it."

Still doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is the interpretive body.

"They understand its inherent ability to change> the amendment process.

But there is no other inherent ability to change it."

The legislative process and the judicial review.

Josh said...

"Yup, and anything similar to those articles."

Marijuana is illegal, therefore anything similar to marijuana is also illegal. LOL, the absurdity. If congress was granted the power to legislate anything similar to that which is within Article 1 Section 8, would be the point of having a constitution anyway? The law become irrelevant with such idiotic interpretations.

"Still doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is the interpretive body."

What does that have to do with our conversation? Our discussion is what is and isn't constitutional, and simply because the supreme court went one way, doesn't mean that the argument for our sake is won.

"The legislative process and the judicial review."

The legislative process to change the constitution IS THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

The Judicial branch of the government is not granted the power to change any law let alone the constitution. Their only power is to interpret events to determine which side of the law they lay.

Christopher said...

"Marijuana is illegal, therefore anything similar to marijuana is also illegal. LOL, the absurdity."

Yes, it is absurd, because marijuana is not found in the constitution.

"If congress was granted the power to legislate anything similar to that which is within Article 1 Section 8, would be the point of having a constitution anyway? The law become irrelevant with such idiotic interpretations."

Not at all. It just means that the constitution is broader than you think and it means it is up to those opposed to those parts of the constitution to oppose them. If you don't like social security, then you are going to have to remove the Post Office section. Due substantive process is a rational interpretation of the constitution. For example, privacy is an inherent concept in relation to freedom, but it was not written into the constitution explicitly. The intent of the constitution is just as important as its letter.

"What does that have to do with our conversation? Our discussion is what is and isn't constitutional, and simply because the supreme court went one way, doesn't mean that the argument for our sake is won."

*shrug* There has to be a body that says what is and isn't constitutional based on law.

"The legislative process to change the constitution IS THE AMENDMENT PROCESS."

Indeed, to change the letter, but not the interpretation.

"The Judicial branch of the government is not granted the power to change any law let alone the constitution. Their only power is to interpret events to determine which side of the law they lay.'

They can strike down laws that they argue unconstitutional.

Josh said...

"Yes, it is absurd, because marijuana is not found in the constitution."

And neither is social security.

"If you don't like social security, then you are going to have to remove the Post Office section."

No, if I don't like the post office I have to remove the post office section. I you like social security, you have to add social security.

"privacy is an inherent concept in relation to freedom"

Privacy isn't specifically in the constitution because your right to privacy isn't a natural right. The following does protect you against actions which violate your private property:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That my neighbor read through my journal is only criminal in so much that they did not have my permission to use my private property, not that they invaded my privacy.

Your premise is false.

"*shrug* There has to be a body that says what is and isn't constitutional based on law."

Not for the sake of our argument, for the sake of our argument we can look to the actual constitution. Not another's imperfect opinion of it.

"Indeed, to change the letter, but not the interpretation."

The constitution is not meant to be interpreted, its straight forward, blunt, clear, and concise.

"They can strike down laws that they argue unconstitutional."

Right, but that's not changing a specific law, that's nullifying it.

Christopher said...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Post Office plus "promote the general welfare" are pretty clear indications that social security is constitutional.

Christopher said...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Post Office plus "promote the general welfare" are pretty clear indications that social security is constitutional.

Josh said...

Promoting the "general welfare" does not mean promoting the welfare for some at the expense of others against the authorized powers in Article 1 Section 8.

Christopher said...

"Promoting the "general welfare" does not mean promoting the welfare for some at the expense of others against the authorized powers in Article 1 Section 8."

Yes it does. That's why the founders added the post office to the constitution. BECAUSE THEY AGREED WITH PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Christopher said...

My God conservatives are dumb.

Josh said...

"That's why the founders added the post office to the constitution. BECAUSE THEY AGREED WITH PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE."

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The income tax is a direct, disproportionate tax, which provides for the welfare of some at the expense of others. A tax that agrees with promoting the general welfare would be flat across population, not to any disadvantage.

You could argue that any policy enacted provides for the "general welfare" under your rationalization, and if this was the intent, if this is what was meant in black and white by these words, then one might ask, why even limit the power of congress? In some cases, couldn't the government argue limiting free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to protected against unwarranted searches, might limiting this right be for the GENERAL WELFARE?

Christopher said...

"The income tax is a direct, disproportionate tax, which provides for the welfare of some at the expense of others. A tax that agrees with promoting the general welfare would be flat across population, not to any disadvantage."

No, sorry, that clause was meant and is meant to force the federal government to apply a standard that is applicable to every state, not every individual. Equality among the states was a very important issue early on, as shown in the actions of the first continental Congress. Yup, it was written to avoid bigger states gaining predatory power, just as the Senate was constructed to guarantee that all states are represented equally.

The standards are uniform and they apply to all citizens the same. If are in a certain tax bracket ANYWHERE and in ANY state, you have to pay X.

"You could argue that any policy enacted provides for the "general welfare" under your rationalization, and if this was the intent, if this is what was meant in black and white by these words, then one might ask, why even limit the power of congress? In some cases, couldn't the government argue limiting free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to protected against unwarranted searches, might limiting this right be for the GENERAL WELFARE?"

I would say no. The General Welfare is directly related to economic liberty and personal liberty. They are two wings of the same bird.

Josh said...

"The standards are uniform and they apply to all citizens the same. If are in a certain tax bracket ANYWHERE and in ANY state, you have to pay X."

This is still not promoting the general welfare. This is promoting the welfare of some over the welfare of others.

"I would say no. The General Welfare is directly related to economic liberty and personal liberty. They are two wings of the same bird."

So an income tax infringes on economic liberty and therefore cannot be argued to be constitutional under the general welfare clause.