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 5)
10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Oct 15, 2013

Alstein


I meant 60% of the popular vote. 
 

I say this without intending to be disrespectful at all, because I think we (you and I specifically) have had or taken part in some interesting discussions around this place.  This is a terrible, dreadful idea.  It undermines the entire strength of the US constitution.  

The writings of the framers make it clear that they feared tyranny of the majority nearly as much as they feared a too-powerful executive.  Part of the brilliance of the US Constitution vis-a-vis other forms of government (at least as designed, pre-240 years of "living constitution") is that it explicitly provides popular majorities their voice (the House of Representatives) while providing the States their voice (the Senate) and provides a framework that makes wave elections difficult and makes sudden, radical shifts of national direction nearly impossible.  

Those are good things because it allows popular sentiment to have its stage while also increasing institutional stability.  It also makes it exceptionally difficult to change the rules of the game (the amendment process) because the framers understood human nature.  We're fickle beings, given to greed, envy, hatred, etc and we love finding scapegoats for all of our own failings.  This system makes it harder for those flashes of national emotion to be codified.  This system protects the minority expressly at the expense of the majorities waves of emotion.  The idea being that if the majority's desire to amend the constitution is worthwhile the opinion will grow among the people and the states and the change will happen.  But slowly and smoothly and only occasionally.  

Think of how many times this country has swung back and forth politically just in the last 40 years.  Imagine if it was easy for one side or the other to radically alter the rules of the game.  

 

on Oct 15, 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.

His post is admittedly somewhat awkwardly phrased, but you are off base here.

I suggest that you go plug "Incorporation Doctrine" into wikipedia and give it a read.  Basically, there were a series of court rulings in the first half of the 20th Century that cited the 14th Amendment.  He is referencing those.

on Oct 15, 2013

Man that's some revisionist history...

 

Chibiabos, you seem to have difficulties grasping the difference between something being done lawfully and something being done unlawfully.

 

A Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery is not smiting state rights.  As a Constitutional Amendment, the states had to ratify it for it to take effect.

 

The problem was, from the Confederate perspective at least, that the idiots had already seceded from the union and thus weren't present in representation to block the amendment process, nor in ratification.  If they hadn't left, it never would have been ratified.

 

It's nice to see my expectations being met, I knew the commies would pretend privateers don't exist.

on Oct 15, 2013

sareth01
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.

Seriously? How you can transpose a 21st century definition into a 18th century document is truly disturbing.

psychoak
The problem was, from the Confederate perspective at least, that the idiots had already seceded from the union and thus weren't present in representation to block the amendment process, nor in ratification. If they hadn't left, it never would have been ratified.

I may be incorrect however I thought that part of the conditions for the Southern states to rejoin the union was ratification.

From Wikipedia: The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in the Congress.

on Oct 15, 2013

Seriously? How you can transpose a 21st century definition into a 18th century document is truly disturbing.

I have studied law in detail and from that research I have an understanding of what law is, and how it works.  As with all things I don't know everything, feel free to find holes in my knowledge, I have no undue pride about it.

Laws are defined by the LEGAL definitions of the time.  The definition at the time of the second amendment's adoption for the word "arms" is both relevant and precisely the intent of that amendment during the time of it's adoption.  Legal definitions are sometimes different from common definitions, there is a large ignorance of this understanding at the present time. Noah Webster's dictionary was the legal standard for it's time, even though it was printed after the constitutional writings(and therefore could be manipulated and altered from the true meaning).  Still, it is the best we have to work with.

How can you apply 21st century definitions to 18th century law?  You only serve to prove my other point, that the media influence to change the culture of law by altering popular definitions is highly effective.  

Your tacit view that things are different in the 21st century, that we are "superior" is both a fallacy and a means to control the law.

Ex Post Facto laws are expressly forbidden by the constitution, I HIGHLY suggest you read up on what ex post facto means so that you do not become a part of the ignorant opposition to the constitution.  Also, you should look up in detail what the definition of "law" is and how that has changed.  Also, you can research some cultural anthropology to provide yourself with a framework of understanding cultures in general.  

Also, friendly tip:

Bringing your emotional evaluation into your legal discussion really is irrelevant and only serves to discredit your view.


on Oct 15, 2013

It's the little things that make life worth living.

 

I may be in a country filled with idiots that will doom us to an eventual catastrophic collapse and ensuing dictatorship, but at least I'm amused by the willful blindness.

 

Once again, mostly because it's fucking hilarious.  Cannons, grenades, mortars, all regular parts of post revolutionary life.  Common enough that some places had to pass laws against leaving them lying around primed because of all the fires and explosions happening by accident.

 

Privateers!  The sublime ass kicker of every liberal twat trying to argue that the Second Amendment only covers hunting rifles.  21st century man quakes in fear at the thought of a private citizen having a machine gun.  18th century man thought nothing of private citizens being capable of coastal bombardment from a hundred gun warship.

 

Third time the charm maybe?

on Oct 15, 2013

psychoak
18th century man thought nothing of private citizens being capable of coastal bombardment from a hundred gun warship.

Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

'sublime ass kicker' my arse....

on Oct 15, 2013

Why would he need to?  Coastal bombardment could take care of the shore side school just fine from out in the water.  They wouldn't even go into port, it would be suicide to attack from that close since every ship at port would be firing on them after a few rounds, and probably people in the city.

 

Anyone stupid enough to shoot up a school in the 18th century would have been dead in as messy a fashion as the people that got to them first could manage.  They'd have been in a shooting war with half the people nearby inside a minute.  Today they get to waltz around in a free zone for an hour while our cops stand around outside waiting for them to get bored and come out or kill themselves.  When they're taken alive they spend the next few years getting letters from fans before their show trial starts.  Then they spend the next few decades getting three squares a day in solitary because we wouldn't want the other inmates to do what should have been done to start with.

 

I don't even have to bother with locking doors around here, anyone stupid enough to run around robbing homes would end up dead fast.  Everyone has guns, and it's understood that cleaning up your own problems and calling the police to come collect the bodies is the only way you're going to get them taken care of.  It's the only thing they'd bother showing up for.  Actually taking someone alive would be a big mistake here.  Your outcome is guaranteed the first time you screw up and rob a place where someone is home.

on Oct 15, 2013

Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

WTF? 

Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said? 

on Oct 15, 2013

Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

'sublime ass kicker' my arse....

The reason schools get targeted nowadays is because it is all a psychological operation to garner support and enmity between the two factions/countries at war.

Psy-OP game plan:

1. You kill children and other innocent people, to make the people care about your war.

2. You do a media blitz and blame your enemy, fabricating evidence when needed.

3. You buy up any information discrediting your story and suppress any competing voices with death threats and real force.

4. You watch the numbers and hopefully they will go your way to reach a result in your parliament/congress, greasing the wheels with indirect/direct bribes as you go.

5. You go to war/Get more military funding/Start a secretly approved conflict.

We live in a connected world, making it all the more difficult to go to war.  Why do you think the US/allied forces have been killing any journalists trying to radio their stories out of the war zone? 

Information deprivation is the key to victory, since the people have no actual interest to go to war and must therefore be fooled.

Arming people today with relevant weaponry would only serve to make this warfare cycle break down, as people with guns are generally smarter and more knowledgeable about the world than people without guns, and they have an extra "bullet vote".  

Conflict happens in a world with scarce resources, people with lots of college experience and little life experience have a harder time comprehending this.  It's something of a reality check having a weapon in your hand that can dispatch someone efficiently, you have to take responsibility for your actions and responsibility for what you know and do.  Taking responsibility isn't necessarily taught at university, our litigation society is more focused on evading responsibility and therefore ineffective at teaching people how to maintain their rights(you make more money when there is a complex legal system that can steal people's property too).  After all, look what "Marching on Washington" has done to secure our current liberties...lol

 

 

on Oct 15, 2013

sareth01
I have studied law in detail and from that research I have an understanding of what law is, and how it works. As with all things I don't know everything, feel free to find holes in my knowledge, I have no undue pride about it.

I'm really not sure how your condescending rant has anything do to with my questioning your statement that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own bazookas and SAMs.

Is there a point to your ramblings that actually reflect my attitudes, I think not.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment, which I think you think I am. I didn't allude to a desire to change the constitution. Should I thank you for the unnecessary civics lesson, I think not.

I stand by my statement that when the 2nd amendment was written the definition of "arms" is much different than what is it today. I also think the ATF would disagree with you as well,

Here's a piece of friendly advice back to you; oh, I don't have any, I'm not your friend.

on Oct 15, 2013

Seeing this thread,  why do I think it's ironic that I had a test on that very same first part of the Constitution the day that I post this...

on Oct 15, 2013

myfist0
Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said?

Et tu, Brute?

on Oct 15, 2013

myfist0


Quoting Jafo, reply 67Ooh....and when was the last time 18th century man drove his hundred gun warship into a primary school and killed all the kids?

WTF? 

Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't comprehend what he said? 

That was made clear in threads other than this one already.

on Oct 15, 2013

So what I want to know is:  Where can I buy my warship and who wants to be on my crew? 

10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last