[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
It’s authority is that it makes sure the states don’t issue tariffs, that we don’t tariff other nations. [/quote]
Eh?[/quote]
Obviously if another nation tariffs us we do the same thing back, give me a break here I am trying to make things simplistic here, Really don’t feel like writing out a giant ass paper to dive into every little detail.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:
Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB.
[/quote]
The same sort of reasoning could be applied to anyone who has enthusiasm for a candidate, no? And I support this one not because of the color of her skin or her gender, but because I like her IDEAS. That, and she’s not a lawyer.
When did it become sane to have lawyers (lawyers!) run the country? We must be mad!! Pass out the mercury tablets (like Ol’ Abe used to take for his depression)!!!
[/quote]
Abe was a lawyer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:
Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB.
[/quote]
The same sort of reasoning could be applied to anyone who has enthusiasm for a candidate, no? And I support this one not because of the color of her skin or her gender, but because I like her IDEAS. That, and she’s not a lawyer.
When did it become sane to have lawyers (lawyers!) run the country? We must be mad!! Pass out the mercury tablets (like Ol’ Abe used to take for his depression)!!!
[/quote]
Abe was a lawyer.[/quote]
zing.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Edit*
A good analogy would be a football game. A ref regulates the football game. [/quote]
No they do not, see “Hochuli, Ed” for a perfect example!
(sorry John couldn’t resist)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
The only regulation they are aloud to do is… Coin Money, Regulate(keep open) interstate commerce, and allow patents.
That is what the Government is aloud to do. All this other nonsense that everyone else wanted to do is illegal, and as we are seeing destroying businesses.[/quote]
Incorrect - and you are just getting worse. “Regulation” means exactly that - to regulate. To govern or direct according to rule. The Clause was added to give the federal government the power to create uniformity within the commerce of the states that it didn’t have under the Articles of Confederation.
By your lights - “Ron Paul told me so!” - there would only be a negative Commerce Clause - the dormant Commerce Clause that says state laws can’t interfere with or otherwise screw up the flow of commerce (protectionism, etc.). But that isn’t all the [/i] Constitution provides - it provides a positive grant of power for Congress to affirmatively and proactively make regulations that affect national commerce.
Doesn’t matter if you don’t like the regulations. Doesn’t matter if you wished there were none. What matters - as a threshold matter - is that Congress can pass laws regulating businesses engaging in interstate commerce.
This “Ron Paul!” nonsense - “the federal gummint can’t pass a single legal law imposing any kind of regulation on any business ever!” - has been the worst thing to happen to the argument for limited government in the past twenty years. [/quote]
This. Yes, emphatically, this.
It is likely that Gouvernor Morris wrote the Commerce Clause, but it was embraced not just by Hamilton, but by Madison as well.
I think it curious that John S. invokes a later Madison; let’s see what Madison had to say, about the subject a hand, at the time of the Framing of the Constitution:
[i]"Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same. Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.
Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included."[/i]
(The Federalist Papers, #44).
And it will be the ideologically pure Ron Paulistas who will ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government for the next twenty years.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included."[/i]
(The Federalist Papers, #44).
And it will be the ideologically pure Ron Paulistas who will ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government for the next twenty years.
[/quote]
What did regulation mean back in the day. He is right the law clearly states that it is to regulate, and the term regulate back then ment to keep things regular.
How does Ron Paul supports claiming that government shouldn’t get involved in businesses ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government? I want to end the spending.
Again another argument that makes no sense.
How is this to hard to understand. People can’t really believe the constitution tells us to be Fascist.
Edit*
Lets follow what you believe a little bit closer. Can we say that our government is a small limited government if the Interstate commerce clause is used like you said it should be? NO.
2+2=5
I understand liberal education has made people borderline retarded but please think things through.
Remember the time in which the Constitution was written, then go back there and find the meanings of the words and you will understand that suggesting government has the right to merge with businesses is borderline retarded.
I didn’t want to do this but I find myself having to facepalm this thread.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included."[/i]
(The Federalist Papers, #44).
And it will be the ideologically pure Ron Paulistas who will ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government for the next twenty years.
[/quote]
What did regulation mean back in the day. He is right the law clearly states that it is to regulate, and the term regulate back then ment to keep things regular.
How does Ron Paul supports claiming that government shouldn’t get involved in businesses ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government? I want to end the spending.
Again another argument that makes no sense.
How is this to hard to understand. People can’t really believe the constitution tells us to be Fascist.
Edit*
Lets follow what you believe a little bit closer. Can we say that our government is a small limited government if the Interstate commerce clause is used like you said it should be? NO.
2+2=5
I understand liberal education has made people borderline retarded but please think things through.
Remember the time in which the Constitution was written, then go back there and find the meanings of the words and you will understand that suggesting government has the right to merge with businesses is borderline retarded.[/quote]
Now, John, grab a hold of something and follow these simple instructions:
Read what I wrote.
Read what Madison wrote.
You will see that the essay that you used as your source is misleading, biased, and did not include this original matter, direct from Madison’s hand, reflecting on all the points which you deny.
The Federalist is difficult to read, over-interpreted, written in the “time that the Constitution was written” (as you yourself direct), and one true classic…more often talked about than actually read.
To answer your question, it is not Ron Paul and his particular policies which I find responsible for the coming Deluge. It is his adherents–among whom, sadly, we now find you–which I find at fault.
The ideologue would rather vote “on principals,” or will not vote for “the lesser of two evil” candidates. And so, among conservatives, in swing districts, the vote will be split between ideologues (like Paulistas) and practical conservatives. So, Frankens will go to the Senate, more Upstate NY Democrats will go to the House, and so on.
Oh, yes, the True Believer cannot give up the ideology at his core. He is the keeper of the fire. Time will prove him right. His ideology will eventually triumph.
The proffered historical example is Reagan, who took his 16 years to achieve the presidency. But I argue that he was an eminently practical man with a few–very few–strongly held principles. And he understood American pluralism quite well, perhaps more so than even LBJ.
Trust me on this: Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. And neither is Sarah Palin an Abigail Adams.
–
Now, then, once you have had the time to read and digest The Federalist, Number 44, I will allow you apologetically to remove your “Facepalm,” which is a thorough reminder to our readers that the blindness of the hand is only temporary, and that of the closed mind is permanent.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized…
[/quote]
Let’s talk about “wherever the end is required.” What does that mean, Doc?[/quote]
Ask Madison.
Since I cannot, I would like to think that he was not sarcastic, or cynical, but expressing the practical and legitimate ends of government. Perhaps he presumed too much about the endurance of honor, or of values, or of a common agreement of those ends. Dunno; but that quote sure got your attention, eh?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized…
[/quote]
Let’s talk about “wherever the end is required.” What does that mean, Doc?[/quote]
Ask Madison.
Since I cannot, I would like to think that he was not sarcastic, or cynical, but expressing the practical and legitimate ends of government. Perhaps he presumed too much about the endurance of honor, or of values, or of a common agreement of those ends. Dunno; but that quote sure got your attention, eh?[/quote]
Oh, I wasn’t insinuating he was being sarcastic or cynical. But EVERYTHING in that entire quote rests squarely on the shoulders of that phrase. We can understand none of the rest of his writing in that regard without ascertaining the intent of those five words.
If you’re going to go with, “the practical and legitimate ends of government,” I’m fine with that. Now define your phrase. If you do so within the confines of Madison’s mind then you’d have to agree “the practical and legitimate ends of (the federal) government” are very, very limited. And proof of that is found in other Federalist Papers as well as writings that deal with the Constitutional Convention and arguments for and against ratification of the Bill of Rights.[/quote]
The quoted passage concludes the review of the enumerated powers of the central government, as well as the restrictions on the states. That review occupies Numbers 40-44. But Madison, a practical man, is purposefully ambivalent; the “means” may change and the “object” may change over time. The Constitution is elastic enough to accommodate.
(OK. Amendment 10 was not just some hiccup or afterthought. One cannot read Madison’s Federalist essays without hearing him say, “Damn…shoulda included that in there somewhere…”)
So, too, I read the passage, “No more axiom…” as ambivalent. It indicates at once that the powers of the federal government are enumerated, and Congress has full authority. And it also warns that when such authority is granted, the “end” must be very carefully chosen. Now, what practical and legitimate ends lie within those enumerated powers has occupied arguments and courts for 220 years.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized…
[/quote]
Let’s talk about “wherever the end is required.” What does that mean, Doc?[/quote]
Its in the “but we really, really want to”- clause of the constitution.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HH’s comment, “Let’s hope she can save us!” sparked a thought:
Do any of you fear that the same joyous support of Palin will be no different than the same “joyous” support for Obama. The same joyous support that was void of any reasoning other than they are “cool” or can “relate to” and can “save us” from what we are disgusted with. Think how Obama “would save us” from GWB.
[/quote]
The same sort of reasoning could be applied to anyone who has enthusiasm for a candidate, no? And I support this one not because of the color of her skin or her gender, but because I like her IDEAS. That, and she’s not a lawyer.
When did it become sane to have lawyers (lawyers!) run the country? We must be mad!! Pass out the mercury tablets (like Ol’ Abe used to take for his depression)!!!
[/quote]
Abe was a lawyer.[/quote]
zing.
[/quote]
You guys honestly think I didn’t know Abe was a lawyer? Seriously? Wow…
Abe was a RR lawyer and was put in to the presidency by the railroads to get the free land and subsidies for building the transcontinental railroad. He received a ‘gift’ of some land around Council Bluffs, IA where the railhead would be (made a fortune).
They also knew that a con artist could, in all seriousness, argue that the Union was permanent, that rebellion was allowed by the Constitution, but that secession was not,…blah, blah, blah. Afterall, empires need big countries.
My comment about lawyers stands. Zing!
[quote]John S. wrote:
I didn’t want to do this but I find myself having to facepalm this thread.[/quote]
Hey now…Sarah would object!! 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
Anyone mention yet that popularity does not equal job approval?
Carry on.[/quote]
Erm yes, page 1. Otherwise we would have our next Presidential candidates coming from dancing with the stars[/quote]
“Our?”
Apparently you have caught Onionitis. Since when do you foreign fuckers get to run 'round saying “our” and “we” when speaking of America? You getting ready to swim the Rio Grande looking for healthcare for illegal immigrants?[/quote]
Did you not see his speach at the peace prize medal ceremony? He is not just the US’s president, he is the world’s peace keeper. (lol, good catch)
[quote]tme wrote:
Ahh, sorry pusshy, but we were nominating Dancing With The Stars contestants, not guys from your personal gay porn collection. Nice try, though.
[/quote]
You forgot the obligatory NTTIAWWT
With names like Paul (father and son), Schiff, Kokesh, etc. out there, Sarah Pailin is the last thing we need. The fact that you are pimping her like this shows that you are an intellectual child. Also, you are a racist and a homophobe.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(Madison text, Federalist)
And it will be the ideologically pure Ron Paulistas who will ensure the continuance of a liberal spendthrift government for the next twenty years.[/quote]
Excellent stuff, Doc, as always. Madison was no anarchist and understood well that the Constitution granted powers and expected those powers to be, amazingly, used by the federal government. Also, John S.'s hero Madison, let’s not forget, changed his mind on a national bank and asked Congress for the Second Bank of the United States. Maybe John S. will want to castigate his cited “libertarian” authority as a proper “Fascist!” and have a good cry.
Further to the point, the first substantive law passed by the First Congress was a tariff, despite the neo-Jacobin’s insistence that the Commerce Clause could have have possibly permitted such anti-free market positive regulation.
Also, the First Congress passed the Indian Intercourse Act, which - chuckles aside - regulated how trade would be conducted with Indians. One of the provisions? You had to get licensed by the government in order to trade. That is good, old-fashioned meddlin’ with the free market - standing in my way to trade anywhere I want with whomever I damn well please - who knew the First Congress was a bunch of statist, socialist Fascists?
So, if John S. and his bozo guru are right, the First Congress of the United States, acting pursuant to the Constitution that was just ratified, were legislating in contravention to their constitutional authority. Preposterous.
Even Thomas Jefferson - the plaster saint of Founding “libertarianism” - signed the Embargo Act.
This is not to say there was never controversial legislation, or that just because an early Congress passed a law meant that it was automatically blessed by constitutional lights - but it was (and is) clear that everyone thought Congress, via the Commerce Clause, had a right to create positive regulations that promoted commerce. This isn’t in dispute, but for the Ron Paul revisionist idiots.
John S.'s fundamental problem is that he instantly sees any regulation of commerce as equivalent to the government taking over and running Goldman Sachs. This is nonsense. Any sane person recognizes there is a spectrum of regulatory activity and that regulations can have different goals. A federal law that insures that foods and drugs are labeled correctly if being sold throughout the US - a law designed to improve informational transparency on goods and help prevent harmful products from reaching the consumers (avoiding difficult mass tort lawsuits), thus theoretically improving commerce - is not the same as a law making the federal government take over private industry.
Most people know this. The Paulnuts do not. Theirs is a constitution of their own making, exactly like the far-left-liberals. They ignore history, start with an ideological conclusion they like, and then, working backwards, demand that the constitution is the unalloyed instrument that commands that ideology in its purest form.
And this is why they are so problematic for limited government advocates. So extreme and stupid and brutish is their ideology, and so divorced from fact and history that potential converts to a limited government point of view - ones who have even a basic understanding of civics - dismiss their quackery as they would an annoying religion-peddler on your doorstep.
It’s no wonder that social-democratic soft-statism has been selling so well over recent years. John S. and our other “li-buh-turr-eans” around here and their wretchedly extreme ideology don’t do anything but turn people off from the concept of liberty, limited government, and federalism.
I don’t want to paint with to broad a brush, as there are many kinds of libertarians, but I must say, I have come to loathe what passes for libertarianism anymore. They are as ignorant as the socialists.