US constitution original intent question

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the limited powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress also has the elastic power to do whatever is necessary to be able to exercise its enumerated powers. Theoretically the Congress does have unlimited power.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does it have unlimited power? It only has the power to make sure it can use its listed powers. For example, giving healthcare to all Americans doesn't serve this purpose, 'ergo', Congress can't pass this sort of law under the elastic clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because any politician worth his salt can certainly justify any government action as necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers of Congress.

Giving health care to all Americans could be construed as regulating interstate commerce. Patents also play a role: suppose you have developed a new medicine; Congress could certainly say you have to contribute a certain amount of money to give health care to the poor- or give some of your medicine to the government so it can give it to the poor in order for you to get a patent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I get it now. You're an anti-federalist's gimmick account. I suspected it before, but am now certain. Good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If you really think that I am an Anti-Federalist, considering my posts here, you are sadly mistaken.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the limited powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress also has the elastic power to do whatever is necessary to be able to exercise its enumerated powers. Theoretically the Congress does have unlimited power.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does it have unlimited power? It only has the power to make sure it can use its listed powers. For example, giving healthcare to all Americans doesn't serve this purpose, 'ergo', Congress can't pass this sort of law under the elastic clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because any politician worth his salt can certainly justify any government action as necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers of Congress.

Giving health care to all Americans could be construed as regulating interstate commerce. Patents also play a role: suppose you have developed a new medicine; Congress could certainly say you have to contribute a certain amount of money to give health care to the poor- or give some of your medicine to the government so it can give it to the poor in order for you to get a patent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I get it now. You're an anti-federalist's gimmick account. I suspected it before, but am now certain. Good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If you really think that I am an Anti-Federalist, considering my posts here, you are sadly mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gimmick account means you are intentionally representing the other side in a feeble way to make your own (veiled) argument more easily.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the Founders and their original intent has no bearing on today’s society is irrelevant. If their original intent makes it difficult for us to deal with today’s socio-economic problems, then all we have to do is amend the Constitution instead of blatantly and illegally violating it over and over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uhm, yes... they have the power to use their few and defined powers... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I gather that it doesn’t take much to confuse you. In addition to the limited powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress also has the elastic power to do whatever is necessary to be able to exercise its enumerated powers. Theoretically the Congress does have unlimited power.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your explanation for the reason that they made that big list of powers for Congress in Article 1, Section 8? You think they wanted to make a big long list for no reason?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Congress has the power to negotiate treaties...

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? Where in the Constitution does “Congress” have the power to negotiate treaties? It is the President that has such power. The most the Congress can do is have the Senate refuse to give its consent as the Constitution requires;

[/ QUOTE ]

So what I said was completely correct and you're just picking on semantics. That says a lot about your goals here.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Then the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers should both be rejected as arbiters of original intent since they were both written when specific policies were not under discussion because the federal government had not yet been created so specific policies couldn’t yet be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

either you're dense or you're just propagandizing, but let me give you an example.

there was some debate about whether the president or the congress should command the army. some argued for one side and some argued for the other. now we know which way that turned out since in the const. the pres. is commander in chief. but congress has to declare war. if you want a deeper understanding of why they set it up that way you can read the arguments. that's what I mean. if you can't figure that out then you're just a total propaganda account.

for example, in that example, if someone said, hey, the original intent was for the president to command the army and he cjould do whatever he wanted and if he wanted war the congress were just a rubber stamp and had to officially declare war whenever the pres wanted them to, then a quick reading of fed/antifed and other writings would quash that argument pretty quickly.

to sum up, founding of america was limited government, checks and balances, seperation of powers, etc., because basically the system is set up recognizing the fact that corrupt people will be drawn to power, and even non corrupt will become corrupt once there.