Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/12/04 11:08 am:
surely you would have no problem with the 13th ,14th and 15th amendments (ok. maybe the 14th has been misinterpreted by the courts at times? )
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/12/04 11:13 am:
my wife wants me to add the 19th to my list
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/12/04 1:47 pm:
As I review the Constitution, I am finding that the Federal Government is actually guaranteed some pretty broad and important powers. From the Constitution:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the Credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The power to make, borrow and otherwise control money. The power to create and service a military. The power to make and enforce laws in the best interest of the People. That's a lot of power. The Federal government was not lame by any means under the constitution.
As for the powers of the Executive Branch:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This too is a lot of power. Congress can create the Militia, but the President is its commander. Foreign policy is his to create. Judicial appointments (with advice and consent of Congress), which means his decisions can effect generations through judicial enforcement that will take place long after he is gone from the White House.
Where did you get the idea that the Federal Government was supposed have no power whatsoever.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/13/04 3:28 am:
the debate was made before ratification . the anti-federalists lost . they lost again in 1865 .
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/13/04 8:05 am:
Excon,
>>>Every change in the Constitution, beyond the Bill of Rights, since then has been changed due to a “liberal” reading of the document.<<<
As I think about your argument, I find that there is another point that I missed. The Constitution provides for Amendments with a 2/3 vote of Congress (House and Senate) and 3/4 ratification by the states (either the state legislatures or special state conventions). Any Amendments then become PART OF THE CONSTITUTION as if it had always been part of the Constitution.
Furthermore, any treaties entered into by the President are as binding as the Constitution itself (which is why the NY Indian tribes are currently suing NY State for breach of treaty and Unconstitutional conduct... treaties have the same power as the Constitution itself.)
So if you consider changes to the Constitution to be wrong, you are in essence saying that the Constitution is Unconstitutional. Does that make sense to you?
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/13/04 12:39 pm:
Hello again, Elliot, and you too, Tomder:
Hold on, you guy’s - we’re going down the wrong road here. The fault, however, is mine. I guess I oughtn’t to be so absolutist in my comments. I’ll be more careful next time
I misspoke, when I said that for the first 100 years there was “no” federal power whatsoever. As you so aptly point out, Elliot, the Constitution gives the government limited power. And I misspoke further when I inferred that all changes in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights are bad.
As a matter of fact, I totally repudiate my last statement. The real cool thing about our Constitution is the built in amendment process. The framers, in their wisdom, configured it to change with time, and I don’t disagree at all with that process. Furthermore, I don’t see any amendment that I would disagree with, (except maybe the 16th – income taxes).
The only reason I don’t object to the 18th, (prohibition) is because it was repealed by the 21st. Yes Tom, I think we should have abolished slavery, made the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and I would never object to your wife’s right to vote.
That said, I do stick to the intent of my misstated statements. The changes from our original direction, didn’t occur in the Constitution. Indeed, I wouldn’t object had 2/3 of the states ratified the changes, as the Constitution calls for. However, the changes occurred in the Executive Branch, with the complicity of the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches. That’s why I refer to the decision by the Supremes in the 1850’s which has allowed the Executive Branch to grow exponentially (and unconstitutionally).
Elliot, I still maintain, that in terms of the power government wields today, for the first 100 years of this country, the federal government was virtually powerless.
Compared to today, 1) The fed was broke. They hadn’t yet discovered the magic of income taxes. 2) They had no police forces. There were only two federal crimes, treason & counterfeiting and there were no federal penitentiaries. 3) There were no federal bureaucracy’s, (except the post office). 4) There was no welfare, 5) There was no social security or Medicare, 6) They had no power, nor did they have the inclination to redistribute the wealth. 7) There were no deficits or inflation. 8) Gold was money. 9) Capitalist principles ruled the day and business was left unfettered. And, most importantly 10) Contrary to your assertion, Elliot, the power to rule, beyond those specific Constitutional limits, rested with the people.
The 9th amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Oh, and did I mention that during this time, our industrial engine got started? And do I think the two are related? I do, indeed.
I’m not an anarchist. Being against re-distribution of the wealth, does not equate to being against taxes. There are certain federal governmental services that I use, and I’m happy (ok, not happy, but willing) to pay for them. These are, 1) the defense of my country, 2) the post office and the building of “postal roads” (as the Constitution calls for).
Nothing else!! There are no other federal services that are Constitutional. Everything else beyond those two are social programs that re-distribute the wealth, and I don’t support them.
The states, on the other hand, do have (or should have) the power to rule their states, but you know that’s not so. If it were, those people in those states who passed medical marijuana initiatives, would have access to what the voters in their state said they should have access to. But they don’t.
Maybe I am, indeed, a revolutionary, as you (or that framer) described it. However, due to the “status quo”, in this country, I’m fearful of calling myself a revolutionary in public, because of who might be reading this, and what they think I mean, and the power they have to put me away without anybody knowing about it. After all, who would miss a self an exconvict who was a self-proclaimed revolutionary? They could whisk me off to Gitmo, call me a terrorist, and leave me to rot. Who would know the difference? Is that paranoia, or is the fear I feel real? You know exactly what I’m talking about. Sounds like Christolnaught is coming.
This is your status quo, Elliot - the status quo that you say you don’t support. But if you support Bush, this is the way you want our country to be. I don’t. This is not the America I signed up for.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/14/04 8:50 am:
>>>As you so aptly point out, Elliot, the Constitution gives the government limited power<<<
>>>Elliot, I still maintain, that in terms of the power government wields today, for the first 100 years of this country, the federal government was virtually powerless.
Here we disagree. I believe that the power of the Federal Government was much greater in terms of potential than it is today. You are correct that there were no bureaucracies in those days... but do you think that the existance of red tape makes the government stronger or weaker, in terms of ability to accomplish its goals. Almost everyone I have ever spoken to about bureaucracy has agreed with me that such bureaucracies are less, not more efficient, and weaken both the people and the government that presides over the bureaucracy. You seem to disagree with that.
And you are right that there were no Federal penitentaries. Though I am not sure how this effects power. There were also fewer criminals, so I'm not sure exactly how the lack of penitentaries can be seen as 'weakening' the government. I think this may be your own past causing a bias here.
In terms of income taxes, you are again correct in terms of fact... but please remember that the army and militia were MUCH smaller, and were primarily made up of individuals with his own personal musket. During wartime, soldiers were housed and fed by individual families. The costs of fielding a militia were much smaller for the government. An income tax was not neccesary at that time. Besides, the government had other sources of income... trade tariffs and the like... which were sufficient for the costs of running the government. Sure, there was a much lower income for the government, but the buying power of a dollar was MUCH greater. And there was little red tape involved in controlling that income stream... which meant that the government was actually MORE powerful in terms of its ability to control how it spent money.
It is also true that there was no welfare, no social security and no Medicare. But the fact that the government has to spend BILLIONS in handouts to people who aren't working (either due to circumstance or by choice) doesn't make the government stronger. It makes the government weaker. 100 years ago, everyone either worked, or they received charity, and worked very hard to get a job so that they could support their families. The government didn't get involved in supporting those who chose not to work. The fact that so many people rely on government assistance rather than working means that so much time, money and red tape is being spent on layabouts that could better be spent on other, better pursuits. That weakens the federal government. It certainly doesn't strengthen it.
>>>They had no power, nor did they have the inclination to redistribute the wealth. <<<
They most certainly had the power... they just simply knew better. Tarrifs existed, they just weren't overly-burdensom. They controlled the amount and value of currency in circulation, and controlled banking rules and regulations. They could have redistributed wealth however they wanted. They just knew better than to get too involved. But the power was there.
>>>There were no deficits or inflation. <<<
>>>The fed was broke<<<
Well which was it? Was the Fed broke, or were there no deficits? You can't have it both ways.
The truth is the Revolutionists had borrowed heavily from France, and spent decades paying that debt off. And when the Spanish-American War and the War of 1812 happened, the debt grew. We were also heavily in trade debt, borrowing to pay for goods we were no longer recieving from England. That debt lasted a LONG time.
>>>Capitalist principles ruled the day and business was left unfettered. <<<
True, and I agree with free-trade capitalism. But that is a political/ideological issue rather than a power issue related specifically to the Federal Government.
>>>The 9th amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” <<<
Yes, and that has not changed. What has changed is the number of powers that have been 'taken away' from the Federal Government and 'granted' to the States by Judiacial fiat rather than legislative process. The Liberals have used the courts to weaken the Federal Government and give additional powers to the individual states. This has WEAKENED the Federal Government, not strengthened it.
In almost every way, the Federal Government is weaker today than it was 200 years ago.
>>>Oh, and did I mention that during this time, our industrial engine got started? And do I think the two are related? I do, indeed. <<<
Are you trying to argue that industry purposely STRENGTHED the Federal Governement's ability to regulate industry? By what logic would they possibly want to do that? Why would businesses want a stronger government to regulate their activities. Every businessman that I have ever spoken to has complained of over-regulation. Businesses want a WEAKER government, not a stronger one. I think your logic is backward on this one. To argue that businesses acted to strengthen government is exactly the opposite of what they would do.
>>>However, due to the “status quo”, in this country, I’m fearful of calling myself a revolutionary in public, because of who might be reading this, and what they think I mean, and the power they have to put me away without anybody knowing about it. After all, who would miss a self an exconvict who was a self-proclaimed revolutionary? They could whisk me off to Gitmo, call me a terrorist, and leave me to rot. Who would know the difference? Is that paranoia, or is the fear I feel real? You know exactly what I’m talking about. Sounds like Christolnaught is coming. <<<
Ummmm, now you are starting to scare me. In our prior conversations, you have never struck me as a conspiracy theorist. Do you know of anyone who the government has 'disappeared' without a trace? I certainly don't, and I've know quite a few revolutionaries and revolutionary organizations in my time.
>>>This is your status quo, Elliot - the status quo that you say you don’t support. But if you support Bush, this is the way you want our country to be. I don’t. <<<
I support Bush, because I think he can change the country, or at least give it a new direction. To really make changes will take just as long as it took us to get to this point... about 2 centuries. But Bush has done several things that bode well: he has lowered taxes twice. He has made an effort to strengthen the military and give it the support it needs and deserves. He has made attempts (more than any of his predecessors) to centralize national security under the Federal Government. He has made it known to the entire world that the US Government will not wait for the approval of the rest of the world before acting in its best interests. All of these things strengthen the Federal government and centralize its power. Like I said, it will take a LONG TIME for the status quo to change... but Bush has made a pretty good start for his first 3 years.
>>>This is not the America I signed up for. <<<
The America you 'signed up for' doesn't exist, and hasn't existed in 200 years. You have a choice: you can either work for change within the rule of law in this one, or you can try to break the rules and force change... and considering your past history, I don't think that breaking the rules has worked out too well for you in the past.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/15/04 1:16 pm:
there are alot of snake oil salesmen out there . Even with regulations it is difficult to protect the consumers . I shudder to think what I as a consumer would be purchasing without the regulations mandated on various products I use. I see that as a legitimate role for the government ,and it has to be regulations that apply in all the States ;enforced by a strong federal executive dept. The decentralization you speak of is wispy romanticism to an era that never really existed . Maybe it was practical in a 19th century agrarian society ,but not in 21st century America.
