Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

In recent discussions, it's become clear that many people aren't really that familiar with the US constitution.  This is a shame because it's actually not very long.

The constitution is broken into two parts.  The first part lists the explicit powers the government has.  The second part are the amendments, two of which are designed to make it bloody clear that only the explicitly named powers listed are things the federal government can do.

The recently passed ACA was held as constitutional only because the court narrowly decided that the government had the power to tax people based on whether they have insurance or not.  

Most of the runaway government comes from the 3rd item below known also as the "commerce clause". It's amazing at how one little chink in the armor has been exploited so massively. The word "regulate" has been tortured into all kinds of things.

Similarly, the 16th amendment has been tortured to give the federal government all kinds of weird powers.  If you look through the constitution, the only amendment that gives the government more power is the 16th. The rest have been put in to reduce federal power. And two of the amendments were put in there as a "We aren't kidding, seriously, No joking, only the 16 enumerated powers are things the feds can do. Really!"

Since some people seem to be confused as to what the federal government is legally allowed to do here is a list:

  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  8. 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;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. 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;
In addition, 27 amendments were added to the constitution to further clarify any remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do. They are:
  1. The federal government may not pass laws limiting your speech or establish an official religion.
  2. The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.
  3. The "" may not quarter troops in your house.
  4. The "" may may not search and seize things on a whim but only through search warrants based on probably cause.
  5. The "" may  not force you to incriminate yourself.
  6. The people have a right to a trial by jury.
  7. The people also can demand a jury in civil cases.
  8. No cruel or unnsual punishment allowed.
  9. Restates, for future progressives, that the federal government can only perform the ENUMERATED rights (we had a whole amendment dedicated to this and it still gets forgotten)
  10. Restates, for future progressives, again, seriously, NO KIDDING, that the federal government only has those 16 previously enumerated rights and everything else is left to the states. Clear enough? 2 of the 10 bill of rights designed to make sure no future progressive will think that "promote the general welfare" suddenly is a cart blanche new power. Only those 16 powers.
  11. States are immune from suits from foreigners.
  12. The Prez and Vice President are no longer the 1st and 2nd place finishers in elections.
  13. Slavery is now illegal.
  14. Equal protection of the law and everyone is gauranteed due process.
  15. All men can vote, regardless of color.
  16. The government can now collect money via an income tax.
  17. Senators are now elected by popular vote.
  18. Alcohol is now illegal. 
  19. Women can now vote too.
  20. Changes the date when congress and the president come into office.
  21. Just kidding on the booze, alcohol is legal again.
  22. You can only serve two terms as President.
  23. Washington DC gets to have a vote in presidential elections.
  24. You can't charge people to vote (i.e. no poll taxes).
  25. Clarifies succession for the presidency.
  26. 18 year olds can now vote.
  27. Salary increases for congress dont' go into affect until after the next election

See? Is this really that complicated? The federal government has 16 things it is allowed to do. But for future dumb people, the bill of rights has 2 amendments to emphasize that yes, and truly, only those 16 things are allowed.

So next time someone tells you that the federal government can do anything it wants if it passes congress or if it's popular with the people show them this. Because no, unless they can get the constitution amended to allow whatever their progressive dream they're having, if it's not listed here, it isn't legal unless they can manage to torture the 3rd enumerated power (commerce clause) or the 16th amendment further.

That said, for the most part, your STATE can go nuts.

 

Comments (Page 4)
10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Oct 12, 2013

Leo in WI
Just a small point here, I'm pretty sure the 2A has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting anything. The 2A was put in specifically for use against other humans, and the gov't itself if necessary.

Sarcasm Leo, just sarcasm but thank you for pointing that out.

on Oct 12, 2013

I always thought the point of the constitution was to protect the people and define the role of government. I think the feds should establish national standards. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness should be that same throughout the nation. Not just here or there but fair across the board for all.

He is going for a classic libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, which calls for very narrow interpretations of the Commerce and Elastic clauses.  However, as I've shown above with my counter examples, this is not how the Constitution has been historically interpreted by the Supreme Court, which is what really matters.

With that being said, the whole point of a federal system is that not everything will be the same in every state.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal weight.

However, the Feds have been willing to take care of some of that stuff (for example, the equal rights laws aimed at getting rid of Jim Crow type stuff in the South back in the middle of the 20th Century).

on Oct 13, 2013

Krazikarl


Quoting Frogboy, reply 39Re 2nd amendment: Even without the second amendment, the federal government has very little to do with what guns are allowed or not.

Except that there are a pretty large number of directly counter examples to this.  For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

A simple google search can turn up a lot more if you want.

The federal government has historically had broad power to regulate firearms, typically under the Commerce Clause.

Once again what really matters is how the courts interpret the Constitution, not your personal, very libertarian view of things.  And the courts tend to give pretty broad interpretation of both the Commerce and the Elastic Clauses, which allows the Feds great power in regulating firearms.  Basically, they can control sales and distribution under the Commerce Clause, although outright bans would not be allowed (per Heller and McDonald v Chicago). 


Quoting Frogboy, reply 39 In theory, a STATE or a county should be able to make it illegal to own guns.

No.  The courts get to rule and this and they have.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago[/quote]

 

Sigh. I'd enjoy conversing with you more if you didn't keep trying to disprove a general truth by showing exceptions and then act like the other person was somehow unfamiliar with those exceptions.

By and large, the states determine gun control laws. If you disagree, then say so. Say "most gun laws are made at the federal level" (which is provably false). quit with the "look at me, I can show exceptions while not actually taking a position!"

And of course the courts interpret the law.  That is their function.  

So let me quote what I wrote again:

      Even without the second amendment, the federal government has very little to do with what guns are allowed or not.

if that is too imprecise for you then say so. I can clarify: most gun laws are made at the state and local level.

 

on Oct 13, 2013

Wrong, wrong, all wrong.

One simple example to show how wrong Brad is:  "In addition, 27 amendments were added to the constitution to further clarify any remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do."

No, the Amendments do not merely clarify; in several cases, they alter significantly (over what had been present in the Constitution) what is or is not constitutionally allowed.  A rather blaring example was the Constitution, in its original form, implicitly allowed ownership of people -- slavery -- explicitly present in the original Constitution as "other persons" in the fairly well-known "three-fifths compromise" but slavery was later completely abolished, in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, by the 13th and 14th amendments.  The thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, changed the U.S. Constitution significantly; it did not merely 'clarify' a 'remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do.'

Various amendments are quite vague and undergo various interpretations.  There are lawyers who specialize in Constitutional law.  If you do not have a law degree, chances are you will not fare well attempting to argue Constitutional law in an actual court.  Brad's entire original post completely ignores this "simple" fact on how un-simple the Constitution and legal interpretations of it are.

on Oct 13, 2013

Frogboy

Sigh. I'd enjoy conversing with you more if you didn't keep trying to disprove a general truth by showing exceptions and then act like the other person was somehow unfamiliar with those exceptions.

By and large, the states determine gun control laws. If you disagree, then say so. Say "most gun laws are made at the federal level" (which is provably false). quit with the "look at me, I can show exceptions while not actually taking a position!"

And of course the courts interpret the law.  That is their function.  

So let me quote what I wrote again:

      Even without the second amendment, the federal government has very little to do with what guns are allowed or not.

if that is too imprecise for you then say so. I can clarify: most gun laws are made at the state and local level.

 

You haven't even read the 2nd amendment if you believe it reads "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting anyone from owning a gun."  Its quite explicit what the 'right to bear arms' permits, and in fact it specifies quite clearly "well-regulated."

on Oct 13, 2013

Chibiabos


Quoting Frogboy, reply 48
Sigh. I'd enjoy conversing with you more if you didn't keep trying to disprove a general truth by showing exceptions and then act like the other person was somehow unfamiliar with those exceptions.

By and large, the states determine gun control laws. If you disagree, then say so. Say "most gun laws are made at the federal level" (which is provably false). quit with the "look at me, I can show exceptions while not actually taking a position!"

And of course the courts interpret the law.  That is their function.  

So let me quote what I wrote again:

      Even without the second amendment, the federal government has very little to do with what guns are allowed or not.

if that is too imprecise for you then say so. I can clarify: most gun laws are made at the state and local level.

 

You haven't even read the 2nd amendment if you believe it reads "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting anyone from owning a gun."  Its quite explicit what the 'right to bear arms' permits, and in fact it specifies quite clearly "well-regulated."

 

I'm pretty left, and even I see the law is the right of Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, though the government has the right to regulate how it is done.

I think there's plenty of room for interpretation as to the nuts and bolts, but it's clear that the intent to me was for ordinary Americans to be able to posess a weapon for legitimate self-defense.

 

We already do pass laws prohibiting some from owning a gun (felons, dom.violence folks)- I'm positive those laws have been found constitutional.

on Oct 13, 2013

Until recently, there was a fairly substantial line of thought that guns could be banned from the general public by reading the 2nd Amendment such that the whole "A well regulated Militia..." part meant that only organized groups (and not individuals) were guaranteed guns.  Under this reasoning, a number of laws outright banning guns were passed.

The Supreme Court tossed that out in the rulings that I cited above.

Neither the feds nor lower level governments can ban guns outright, but Heller is a pretty narrow decision, so guns can still be very heavily regulated by the feds (and lower level governments).

on Oct 13, 2013

Frogboy
The states, theoretically, could establish their own religion. In theory.

No they can't.  You really have to be aware of case law.  In this case the relevant case is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Its been in the news lately:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

People have been trying, but the courts have said no (despite the fact that a right wing justice here and there would like to make it so, but the Supreme Court has still said no in the past).

on Oct 13, 2013

Krazikarl


Quoting Frogboy, reply 2The states, theoretically, could establish their own religion. In theory.

No they can't.  You really have to be aware of case law.  In this case the relevant case is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Its been in the news lately:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

People have been trying, but the courts have said no (despite the fact that a right wing justice here and there would like to make it so, but the Supreme Court has still said no in the past).

true.  That 14th amendment has been tortured in lots of different ways (including the 2000 election).

on Oct 13, 2013

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation isa n abominable policy.

on Oct 14, 2013

I don't believe that the second amendment was created so that people can own automatic weapons or say, a 50 cal. sniper rifle to hunt little furry things. If taken in the context of the day it merely states that the militia (which was volunteer) has the right to bear arms. By arms we're talking about muskets. I do think if the framers knew what weaponry would be available today that they would have been more explicit in their descriptions. I don't have anything against guns, own several over the years, but some of the people that do own guns scare the heck out of me. They are also way to accessible by those that shouldn't have them.

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


Letters of Marque.  Permission for private individuals to attack foreign vessels without being branded as a pirate.  Can you seriously make the argument that they just didn't see the machine gun coming?  Private individuals had the modern equivalent of a missile destroyer and they saw it as important the feds had the power to grant them immunity to piracy charges so they could engage foreign ships in times of war.


You worry about some guy with an automatic today.  When it was written, they thought nothing of letting private citizenry run warships.  There were a few thousand of these privateers at the time, some of them with enough firepower to wipe out small cities.


You haven't even read the 2nd amendment if you believe it reads "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting anyone from owning a gun."  Its quite explicit what the 'right to bear arms' permits, and in fact it specifies quite clearly "well-regulated."


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Reasoning is not restriction.  Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed, and it has nothing to do with Congress.  You are also misusing the word regulated.  A well regulated militia was just a group of private individuals that knew how to shoot and march.  They were practiced, regular.  They did not have a list of restrictions on their activities.


The reasoning holds true today as well.  In NYC, people have been given cavity searches at the roadside simply for going somewhere.  The price of their relative security in such a heavily restricted environment has been their basic rights.  Meanwhile, places like Dallas have violent crime rates comparable to NYC without the random cavity search.

on Oct 14, 2013

The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.

the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms...

The word "arms" means so much more than just a gun(based upon the first edition of the Webster dictionary).  The popular media likes to focus on just guns, but guns are not the limit of what "arms" are.

Tangent: The popular media is obsessed with trying to change the definition of words such as this so that they can garner public support to make changes that the people really do not want. Controlling the meaning of words will give you power over a legal system that is based upon precise definitions. end Tangent.

Arms are anything used to defend oneself. 

That means that YES, bazookas, SAM missiles, anything that can deter someone from taking your rights from you without your consent.  People who are grossly ignorant of how these things operate would by and large be too afraid to have them in their homes(along with the prohibitive cost) with their children, so please remember this when responding.   

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation is an abominable policy.

I couldn't agree more.

Policemen come from the old "company town" idea.  When they incorporated the USA, policemen became widespread because the whole country became a "company town".  

I live next to the last "oldschool" company town that operated in the USA (Scotia, CA), I would say that aside from being extremely pretentious and fascist, there is nothing more counter to the constitution's ideals than that of a "company country".

Bring back the cowboys, IMO.

They have a LOT more fun!


on Oct 14, 2013

Frogboy

Alstein brought up why we don't paAs more amendments. Part of the problem, IMO, is the incorporation doctrine that came out in the 40s where federal law now trumps state law due to the 14th amendment. As a result, people are wary of giving or taking power from the federal government because it will apply to the states. Incorporation isa n abominable policy.

 

40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy?  Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s).  There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s.  Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct defiance of several states refusing to accede to this "tyranny" perpetuated by the "evil" federal government ... and the 13th Amendment was officially incorporated into the U.S. constitution in 1865; the 14th amendment was related (essentially forcing states, affirmatively, to recognize the citizenship of all Americans including former slaves) and was officially adopted in 1868.  Where in the heck did you get the idea the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1940s?  You are off by a whopping 8 decades.

Your "knowledge" of American politics and history is appalling bad, Frogboy ... while it could be academically laughable, the sad reality is the vast majority of people on the "right," including yourself, operate politically on the same false premises.  You vote for candidates who feed you false information you agree with, and so you perpetuate the false information.  The nation tried to found as a confederacy with little or no central interstate power, but it failed as a fledgeling.  The founding fathers agreed:  the federal government needs to have power, including the power to protect citizens of states from state governments, to keep interstate commerce fair and prevent one state from undermining another economically.  The union of states must operate coherently in international affairs, including war, treaties, trade agreements and the like.

on Oct 14, 2013

Looks like it's popcorn time.  Life has just got a little more interesting......

on Oct 14, 2013

Chibiabos


40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy?  Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s).  There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s.  Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct defiance of several states refusing to accede to this "tyranny" perpetuated by the "evil" federal government ... and the 13th Amendment was officially incorporated into the U.S. constitution in 1865; the 14th amendment was related (essentially forcing states, affirmatively, to recognize the citizenship of all Americans including former slaves) and was officially adopted in 1868.  Where in the heck did you get the idea the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1940s?  You are off by a whopping 8 decades.

Your "knowledge" of American politics and history is appalling bad, Frogboy ... while it could be academically laughable, the sad reality is the vast majority of people on the "right," including yourself, operate politically on the same false premises.  You vote for candidates who feed you false information you agree with, and so you perpetuate the false information.  The nation tried to found as a confederacy with little or no central interstate power, but it failed as a fledgeling.  The founding fathers agreed:  the federal government needs to have power, including the power to protect citizens of states from state governments, to keep interstate commerce fair and prevent one state from undermining another economically.  The union of states must operate coherently in international affairs, including war, treaties, trade agreements and the like.

Brad is talking about case law from the 1940s that cited the 14th amendment as basis for expanding federal powers beyond what was commonly accepted as the limit of federal power prior to that decade. Surely someone with such a brilliant understanding of American history that they could tell others that theirs' is "appalling [sic] bad" and "academically laughable" should be able to pick up that nuanced meaning?  

Right? 

But keep up the "you're on the right, so you're dumb and only vote for candidates that feed you your false information".  I'm curious to see how Brad responds.  It should be entertaining.  But I'm also interested because I'm somewhat on the "right" (assuming by 'right' you mean American style conservative or libertarian) and I need more of Brad's false information to nourish my academically laughable sad reality of false pretenses.  

 

10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last