(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think SS and welfare are allowed by the constitution anyway, but of course it hasn't stopped them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Social Security is constitutional in that it regulates interstate commerce. Just because a government program is unwise, or is unacceptable to libertarians, does not mean it is automatically unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the general welfare clause of the Preamble clearly declares that insuring the general welfare is within the scope of the federal government.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
Social Security is constitutional in that it regulates interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if the govt levies social security taxes on me even though I work for a local company producing goods for local residents and spend my whole life in this state, then the govt is still justified as part of "regulating interstate commerce"? Words have meanings. The meaning of "regulating interstate commerce" has nothing to do with collecting taxes to pay for an entitlement for workers post-retirement.

[jogsxyz]

If CSI has solved the crime, there should be no trial and no jury. The CSI findings is final.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Social Security is constitutional in that it regulates interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if the govt levies social security taxes on me even though I work for a local company producing goods for local residents and spend my whole life in this state, then the govt is still justified as part of "regulating interstate commerce"? Words have meanings. The meaning of "regulating interstate commerce" has nothing to do with collecting taxes to pay for an entitlement for workers post-retirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What business can you be in and not use raw materials that come from another state or another country?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Social Security is constitutional in that it regulates interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if the govt levies social security taxes on me even though I work for a local company producing goods for local residents and spend my whole life in this state, then the govt is still justified as part of "regulating interstate commerce"? Words have meanings. The meaning of "regulating interstate commerce" has nothing to do with collecting taxes to pay for an entitlement for workers post-retirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

What business can you be in and not use raw materials that come from another state or another country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ought to suggest that that is not the proper way to interpret the Commerce Clause ;-) Might almost as well pass a law giving the federal government power to regulate anything that touches air, earth, water or fire;-) Are we to suppose that that is what the Founders really intended, to create a clause which would give the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate virtually anything and everything??? I - DON'T - THINK - SO. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Weren't the Founders concerned about limiting the scope and powers of the federal government? Why would they create a clause which would do exactly the opposite? This strongly suggests that [they didn't[/i], and that the error lies within the interpretation in modern jurisprudence. Yes, some Founders expressed fears that just something like this would happen, but none of them probably anticipated the continual power-grabbing and creep of the federal government as it has morphed into the absolute behemoth it is today.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think SS and welfare are allowed by the constitution anyway, but of course it hasn't stopped them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Social Security is constitutional in that it regulates interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is the point of limiting the government's powers in so many ways (as the Constitution tries to do), since darn nearly everything affects interstate commerce in some way either directly or indirectly, and under such a broad interpretation the federal government has virtually unlimited powers under the Commerce Clause?

[ QUOTE ]
Just because a government program is unwise, or is unacceptable to libertarians, does not mean it is automatically unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is true. But my take is that much of modern jurisprudence - and much of modern legislation - is at odds with the spirit of the Constitution (and probably at odds with the plain language as well).

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the general welfare clause of the Preamble clearly declares that insuring the general welfare is within the scope of the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare??? This is why I think the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause are better regarded narrowly.

The Commerce Clause has been waaaaaayyy expanded through interpretation so as to include anything that indirectly and remotely affects in any way interstate commerce or prices.

The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted so as to justify rather than to merely qualify (a mistake, IMO). Anything the federal government does should be in accordance with the principle of general welfare, but that doesn't mean that anything that may be deemed as being for the general welfare, the federal government is therefore empowered to do. Again, why even have a Constitution if that were intended? Just let the federal government decide what is "for the general welfare" and the feds can do anything they please. But as we know, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government. Such limitation isn't possible (and would be a sham) if the Commerce and General Welfare clauses grant essentially unlimited powers to the federal government. I think you'll agree that a very primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government, wouldn't you?

Thanks for reading.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what is the point of limiting the government's powers in so many ways (as the Constitution tries to do), since darn nearly everything affects interstate commerce in some way either directly or indirectly, and under such a broad interpretation the federal government has virtually unlimited powers under the Commerce Clause?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Americans in 1787 were economically self-sufficient. With farming and localized manufacturing using locally available natural resources, few Americans were then engaged in interstate or international commerce.

Furthermore, in comparison to the Articles of Confederation, the government that the Constitution replaced, the Constitution was designed to expand government’s powers, not limit them. Under the Confederation the national government had no courts to interpret the law and no executive power to enforce the law. And Congress didn’t have any power to collect taxes or regulate commerce between the states or between the U.S. and foreign countries.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because a government program is unwise, or is unacceptable to libertarians, does not mean it is automatically unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is true. But my take is that much of modern jurisprudence - and much of modern legislation - is at odds with the spirit of the Constitution (and probably at odds with the plain language as well).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think so. We have no clear indication of what anyone’s original intent was in 1787 and the Framers of the Constitution certainly expected the country to expand, commerce to expand and government to expand accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the general welfare clause of the Preamble clearly declares that insuring the general welfare is within the scope of the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare???

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the Constitution wasn’t meant to limit government, but rather empower it.

[ QUOTE ]
The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted so as to justify rather than to merely qualify (a mistake, IMO). Anything the federal government does should be in accordance with the principle of general welfare, but that doesn't mean that anything that may be deemed as being for the general welfare, the federal government is therefore empowered to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what the government does falls within the scope of its enumerated or implied powers, then what the government does is perfectly constitutional. Whether or not what the government does benefits the general welfare is a matter of opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, why even have a Constitution if that were intended? Just let the federal government decide what is "for the general welfare" and the feds can do anything they please. But as we know, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of the Constitution is not to limit the government’s power, but rather determine how that power is to be distributed and how it is to operate.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the Constitution is not to limit the government’s power, but rather determine how that power is to be distributed and how it is to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is explicitly shown wrong by the 9th 10th amendments, which are totally ignored today.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare??? This is why I think the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause are better regarded narrowly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not intimately familiar with US politics, but I'm under the impression that the federal government can bring significant pressure on the states by withholding funding from federal tax revenue. This effectively enables them to gain a lot of power regardless of how the Supreme Court decides on the Commerce Clause.

Unless the states have constitutional power to censure the federal government, unbounded central revenue raising raising is always going to lead to centralization of power.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, what is the point of limiting the powers of the federal government if it is empowered to do anything it deems as insuring the general welfare??? This is why I think the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause are better regarded narrowly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not intimately familiar with US politics, but I'm under the impression that the federal government can bring significant pressure on the states by withholding funding from federal tax revenue. This effectively enables them to gain a lot of power regardless of how the Supreme Court decides on the Commerce Clause.

Unless the states have constitutional power to censure the federal government, unbounded central revenue raising raising is always going to lead to centralization of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and IMO that should be changed somehow.