(Re)Writing a New Constitution

[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 ]
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.

[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.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ 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 ]

what do you mean? seems to me by general welfare they meant stuff like post offices and roads that are specifically enumerated later. also remember that in monarchies, the purpose of government may be thought of as glorifying the king/nobles, and the common men who are peasants are merely chattel to be used to that end.

[ QUOTE ]
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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 Offenses 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[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.

[flaja]

[ 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???

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be so certain that this is not what the Framers of the Constitution intended? If the Framers had intended for the commerce clause to have such a very limited application wouldn’t they have defined what commerce is and what it cannot be for the purpose of regulation?

Again, if you compare the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation you would see that the Constitution was written so as to expand the power of the national government, not limit it.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
also remember that in monarchies, the purpose of government may be thought of as glorifying the king/nobles, and the common men who are peasants are merely chattel to be used to that end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Runnymeade
Richard II
Richard III
Charles I
James II

None of the Framers of the Constitution would have had any concept that the purpose of government was ever to glorify kings and nobles or enslave the common man.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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???

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be so certain that this is not what the Framers of the Constitution intended? If the Framers had intended for the commerce clause to have such a very limited application wouldn’t they have defined what commerce is and what it cannot be for the purpose of regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Founders had very real fear of a too strong federal autrhority, based in part on their experiences with and knowledge of the government of England. Much of the Constitution is devoted to circumscribing the powers of government, so it is a reasonable assumption that the Founders did not intend the Commerce Clause to be stretched beyond its plain meaning. And its plain meaning is clearly to regulate interstate commerce itself, not to regulate anything that may remotely or indirectly affect prices.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, if you compare the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation you would see that the Constitution was written so as to expand the power of the national government, not limit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have been written so as to expand the powers from the articles of Confederation, but in a defined and limited manner; it was not written to give the federal government carte blanche powers over everything. Through the artifice of legally abusing the general welfare clause and the commerce clause, the federal government has been granted carte blanche power over nearly everything. What are we to suppose the limiting parts of the Constitution mean anyway, if they can be swept under the rug merely by invoking the broadest conceivable interpretations of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses?

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
The Founders had very real fear of a too strong federal autrhority, based in part on their experiences with and knowledge of the government of England. Much of the Constitution is devoted to circumscribing the powers of government,

[/ QUOTE ]

What specific parts of the Constitution are you talking about (apart from the Bill of Rights, which was not written at the Philadelphia Convention)? Just how does the Constitution limit the power of government- especially in comparison to the Articles of Confederation?

[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.