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 8)
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10 
on Oct 17, 2013

the usual ... do as i say not as i do... (or whatever variation of that does the trick)

on Oct 17, 2013

Frogboy


Quoting Alstein, reply 29
That's why I suggested 60%.   At some point the majority has to be able to impose its will on the minority.

WOW. That is a scary attitude. I don't want to discuss this further with you.

 


I don't think I fully understand your dismay here, Frogboy. Aside from the way it is done, doesn't the current constitution already allow for a majority to impose its will on the minority? I think it could even be done with just 60% of the vote.

To be specific, I think it would be possible (perhaps only with very implausible election results, but still), that a political party that gets 60% of the votes manages to control both the House and the Senate with a supermajority, as well as sufficient states to pass/ratify any constitutional amendment they want.

Not to say there isn't a material difference between the current system and Alstein's suggestion of how it could be done. It will probably be easier to get 60% votes in a popular referendum, than to get the required composition of the House, Senate and State legislatures with 60-40 vote split in the current normal electoral process. But in principle I think there is no difference to the extent that also under the current constitution a 60% majority could theoretically at least have the power to do it.

And I would dare to guess that if you set the benchmark at say 80% for a popular vote to change the constitution, that would be much better protection of the minority than the current system. After all, any party who would get 80% (probably even just at 70% I think) of the vote in the current electoral process, would almost certainly also have supermajorities in the House and Senate, and control more than enough State legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment.

Or am I missing something? (full disclosure, I am not a US citizen, though I am quite interested in US politics).

 

on Oct 17, 2013

We could also start talking about the three definitions of the United States of America.

Yes, 3 different legal definitions.  Definitions have been added after the founding, think at how this would change the way the constitution is interpreted.

on Oct 17, 2013

Frogboy
My bizarre view on the constitution came from Jefferson himself.

Having an interest in this period of history I've read a number of biographies including ones on Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton not to mention founding brothers. It was pretty clear that the consensus was that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. But our interests in getting it so strong that we looked the other way.  

Would you knock off the quasi personal attacks? 

Please read the article that I cited.

While Jefferson initial had concerns about the Consitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, he listened to others, and was eventually convinced that, as long as Congress (specifically, the Senate) approve the treaty, it would be Constitutional.  It was certainly distasteful to Jefferson, but Madison convinced him that it was technically Constitutional since it was a treaty.  Its very well cited in the Constitutionality section of the article:

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

Modern constitutional analysis also generally concludes that the Purchase was legal.  But I'm guess that you don't believe that either, along with what the Father of the Constitution explicitly said.

When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

on Oct 17, 2013

Why are the founding fathers that important? I am not a US citizen, so all this focus on them in such an important document is somewhat foreign to me. Our constitution was based on the US one, and as such was one of the most liberal ones during it's time in Europe, but we certainly have changed it a lot since then, and I am sure most countrymen of mine could not name one of the "founding fathers" of it. However you Americans seems to me to almost profess an almost religious importance on what the founding fathers meant.

 

 

(Boring sideway discussion, only the "Congress/Senate" is responsible for any changes to our constitution, so it's quite harder to change in the US obviously)

on Oct 17, 2013

When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

Hmm I see "group think" written all over this statement.  Just because enough people in the legal system are holding a title of nobility (esquire and above) doesn't mean that they are beyond question.  Rather, the fact that they hold a title of nobility (and therefore worry about having it stripped from them) they are more easily coerced into following a culture of questionable ethics.

What is obvious is that bodies of legal authority are corrupted to their core.  Lawyers are taught to be effective mercenaries, even to the point of refusing innocent clients because these clients often cause them more problems. Judges were lawyers.  Its another one of those self perpetuating systems that I and many I have talked with find annoying.

Do you know who you need to question in this world?

The people who's actions are considered above question, because they will be the largest offenders.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

on Oct 17, 2013

sareth01


When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

Hmm I see "group think" written all over this statement.  Just because enough people in the legal system are holding a title of nobility (esquire and above) doesn't mean that they are beyond question.  Rather, the fact that they hold a title of nobility (and therefore worry about having it stripped from them) they are more easily coerced into following a culture of questionable ethics.

What is obvious is that bodies of legal authority are corrupted to their core.  Lawyers are taught to be effective mercenaries, even to the point of refusing innocent clients because these clients often cause them more problems. Judges were lawyers.  Its another one of those self perpetuating systems that I and many I have talked with find annoying.

Do you know who you need to question in this world?

The people who's actions are considered above question, because they will be the largest offenders.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

 

Please stop.

 

I don't know anything about law, so I will not argue any side on this subject, but your above argument is the equivalent of saying "Your so called experts are corrupt because they are the establishment" or some such nonsense.

 

I am going to modify KraziKarl's quote:

"When it comes to the heart disease, you disagree with the vast majority of cardiologists, the American College of Cardiology, several cardiac physiologists, and "The Father of Cardiology".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the data that is not backed up by bodies with medical authority.  For example, the cardiac care units."

So you are going to tell me that when someone agrees with a number of cardiologists, it's "group think"?! And so what if it is? They have demonstrated that they are the experts. If you wish to dispute their expertise, fine. Produce the evidence that discredits their position.

 

But you don't do that...you just make some fantastic leap and call them corrupt. In fact, you say it is obvious. Ok, fine. Show it.

 

Your argument smacks of painting the experts as "the power elite". We all know the common man is honest through and through, but those aristocrats? They will stab you in the back and take your wallet in a heart beat. So all you have to do is show that these so called experts eat lunch every day The Inn at Little Washington and then you can dismiss them as corrupt making it easy in the future to shoot down any reference to the experts.

 

Simply having power does not corrupt. Are you in a position of power at your job (a supervisor or manager)or maybe a club? If someone tried to take your job or position away, would you fight for it? Yes? Then by your definition, you are corrupt. Of course that is a silly idea. If you are committing illegal/immoral/unethical acts to keep your power, then yes, you are corrupt. But if you are not, then there  is no corruption.

 

If you have evidence of corruption of the system (not of a single person, but the whole entity), then show it and I will agree with you. But stop this childish argument that because constitutional scholars, the SCOTUS, etc are in power, they must be, by definition, corrupt and anyone who defers to their expertise is engaging in group think.

on Oct 17, 2013

Krazikarl

When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

Brad disagrees with the vast majority of scholars on what, exactly?  The Louisiana Purchase specifically?  Or his original post? 

Because if you mean his original post you're flat wrong.  Brad is basically a strict constructionist.  Not only does the vast majority of Constitutional Scholars not disagree with him, there are at least two strict constructionists on the bench today and it is one of the two major competing schools of constitutional thought around (the other being loose constructionists, or Living Document folks).  Depending on the issue or the part of the constitution in question that number balloons to four or five.  

If you are specifically referencing the Louisiana Purchase, you may be right.  I honestly don't know anything about current thoughts on the issue.  But I will say that current thought on the power of the executive, even among strict constructionists, generally grants far more authority to the executive than was true at the time of the Purchase.  Worth keeping that in mind.

on Oct 17, 2013

sjaminei

Why are the founding fathers that important? I am not a US citizen, so all this focus on them in such an important document is somewhat foreign to me. Our constitution was based on the US one, and as such was one of the most liberal ones during it's time in Europe, but we certainly have changed it a lot since then, and I am sure most countrymen of mine could not name one of the "founding fathers" of it. However you Americans seems to me to almost profess an almost religious importance on what the founding fathers meant.

(Boring sideway discussion, only the "Congress/Senate" is responsible for any changes to our constitution, so it's quite harder to change in the US obviously)

The founding fathers set up our system with extreme effort giving to balancing democracy against tyranny of the majority.  They were worried about having a strong enough executive to carry out the executive duties a nation needs, but they were also terrified of creating a post that would be turned into a psuedo-monarch at some point in the future (sidebar:  This is why the Articles of Confederation had such a weak executive).  They understood the frailty and corruptable side of both individual people and of humanity as a group amazingly well and designed the system to account for both.  This is why the amendment process is so difficult here, for example.  They wanted it to be difficult to change the government so that it would only happen when there was true consensus and not just during short term swings in power or when one exceptionally popular leader used his popularity to push for structural changes on his own (as FDR did several times).  

The reason we pay so much attention to them is because, by and large, they got it right.  It also helps that they wrote hundreds of pages of documents under pseudonyms arguing back and forth about the reasoning behind why the provisions were written the way they were.  This means we have a great understanding for WHY they designed it the way they did.  It's almost as if they were still around to explain it to us today. 

Anyway, that's my thought on it.  You could ask ten different people and probably get ten different answers. 

 

on Oct 17, 2013

sjaminei


(Boring sideway discussion, only the "Congress/Senate" is responsible for any changes to our constitution, so it's quite harder to change in the US obviously)

Actually, this would make for an interesting side discussion.  Most democratic governments, even those modeled explicitly on the US Constitution, are significantly more fluid than ours.  I think that is to our benefit, but I could see the argument for both sides. 

What I mean is that changing the structure of government is harder here than most other places.  Our amendment process is harder.  Similarly there is no federal mechanism for removing elected officials because the people are unhappy with them.  There is no such thing as votes of no confidence, for example.  The only way an elected official is removed early against there will is through impeachment process, which usually means there was some sort of criminal activity or some severe breach of the public trust.  Removing someone because they are no longer popular isn't possible.  

All checks built into the system against the whims of the majority.  

on Oct 17, 2013

flagyl



Please stop.

 

I don't know anything about law, so I will not argue any side on this subject, but your above argument is the equivalent of saying "Your so called experts are corrupt because they are the establishment" or some such nonsense.

 

I am going to modify KraziKarl's quote:

"When it comes to the heart disease, you disagree with the vast majority of cardiologists, the American College of Cardiology, several cardiac physiologists, and "The Father of Cardiology".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the data that is not backed up by bodies with medical authority.  For example, the cardiac care units."

So you are going to tell me that when someone agrees with a number of cardiologists, it's "group think"?! And so what if it is? They have demonstrated that they are the experts. If you wish to dispute their expertise, fine. Produce the evidence that discredits their position.

 

But you don't do that...you just make some fantastic leap and call them corrupt. In fact, you say it is obvious. Ok, fine. Show it.

 

Your argument smacks of painting the experts as "the power elite". We all know the common man is honest through and through, but those aristocrats? They will stab you in the back and take your wallet in a heart beat. So all you have to do is show that these so called experts eat lunch every day The Inn at Little Washington and then you can dismiss them as corrupt making it easy in the future to shoot down any reference to the experts.

 

Simply having power does not corrupt. Are you in a position of power at your job (a supervisor or manager)or maybe a club? If someone tried to take your job or position away, would you fight for it? Yes? Then by your definition, you are corrupt. Of course that is a silly idea. If you are committing illegal/immoral/unethical acts to keep your power, then yes, you are corrupt. But if you are not, then there  is no corruption.

 

If you have evidence of corruption of the system (not of a single person, but the whole entity), then show it and I will agree with you. But stop this childish argument that because constitutional scholars, the SCOTUS, etc are in power, they must be, by definition, corrupt and anyone who defers to their expertise is engaging in group think.

Cardiology is a science.  Constitution scholarship is an opinion industry.  A learned, scholarly one to be sure, but based on opinion.  

By the way Groupthink =/= corruption.  Not even close.  At best you can say they are both breakdowns in a system (whatever system of experts your talking about, in this case Constitutional Law).  One is unintentional and built on good intentions. The other is evil.  

I also see nothing wrong with the sentiment that we should be concerned about those with the most authority. It's not sinister, it's basic risk management.  The people with the most authority are capable of doing the most damage, intentional or otherwise,  to the system that their authority exists in.  

Saying this:

sareth01


Do you know who you need to question in this world?

The people who's actions are considered above question, because they will be the largest offenders.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

is perfectly fine.  The absolute power maxim is simply stating a known failing in human beings.  We are corruptible creatures and the more power we have the more susceptible to corruption we become.  Saying that and acknowledging its truth in no way implies everyone with power is corrupt.  It simply reinforces that we should be vigilant towards corruption of the powerful.  

on Oct 17, 2013

Making a decision on a management plan for a patient is an opinion. Doctor A thinks the best way to treat atrial fibrillation is with chemical cardioversion. Doctor B thinks the best way is with electrocardiversion. The both have opinions about which is the best way to do things; their opinions are based on data, experience, the patient profile, etc, but it is an opinion.

 

He mentions both group think (deferring to SCOTUS, etc) and then mentions that lawyers are corrupt. I laid out arguments as to why neither of these ideas are shown in krazikarl's post. I never said that group think equates to corruption.

 

I never said that we shouldn't be concerned with those in positions of authority. I said that if there is evidence of corruption, then show it.

on Oct 17, 2013

Kantok
Brad disagrees with the vast majority of scholars on what, exactly?  The Louisiana Purchase specifically?  Or his original post? 

I was referring to the Louisiana Purchase specifically here.

With that being said, a lot of his positions are fairly extreme even by the standards of strict constitutionalists.  Yes, I'm aware of Scalia and the like.  But the simple fact is that the history of Supreme Court rulings weight extremely heavily against him, and thats all that matters in the end.

Also, people like Scalia supposedly try and divine the original intent of the founding fathers, and when you have Madison himself saying stuff here (with Jefferson backing him up), well, not even Scalia could do too much there.

on Oct 17, 2013

Krazikarl

 extreme

I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

Please, point out the extreme statements in his OP list.  

on Oct 17, 2013

Kantok


Quoting Krazikarl, reply 118
 extreme

I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

Please, point out the extreme statements in his OP list.  

Why must we arbitrarily constrain it to the OP?  For example, maintaining that the Louisiana Purchase was illegal is a fairly extreme position.  I've put my reasoning and support for that statement above.

10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10