US constitution original intent question

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Most of the important supreme court decisions handed down in the 30s were unconstitutional. FDR literally threatened to destroy the court if it didn't do what he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the only choices the Court had in the 1930s was to:

1. Submit to FDR and rule his way, thus destroying the Constitution (as you libertarians erroneously claim it would have been doing)

or

2. Refuse to submit to FDR and thus have the court “destroyed” by his Court Packing Plan

what did the Court have to lose by ruling against FDR? At least ruling against FDR (and thus maintaining the Constitution as you libs say it would have been doing) would have been a symbolic victory.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Most of the important supreme court decisions handed down in the 30s were unconstitutional. FDR literally threatened to destroy the court if it didn't do what he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the only choices the Court had in the 1930s was to:

1. Submit to FDR and rule his way, thus destroying the Constitution (as you libertarians erroneously claim it would have been doing)

or

2. Refuse to submit to FDR and thus have the court “destroyed” by his Court Packing Plan

what did the Court have to lose by ruling against FDR? At least ruling against FDR (and thus maintaining the Constitution as you libs say it would have been doing) would have been a symbolic victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then FDR would have smeared them all as Nazi sympathizers.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
James Madison: [b]"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

And such powers include the power "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."

Didn't Madison write this too?

And what was Madison’s original intent when he was serving as Secretary of State for a president who some say was violating the Constitution when he bought foreign land from France?

[ QUOTE ]
Did Thomas Jefferson write any of the Federalist papers? No matter, for his view is quite clear also:

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how can Jefferson's opinion have any importance in this discussion since he was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and thus had no direct role in writing the Constitution?

Also consider Alexander Hamilton's original intent when he said:

“Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.”

and

“Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.”

and

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

[lehighguy]

They did stand up to Lincoln, ruling that his suspension of habeous corpus and other authoritarian measures were unconstitutional. The result is that Lincoln said he would ignore the ruling and do whatever he wanted, since he had all the guns.

The constitution is only as strong as the peoples will to enforce it. If they elect leaders who believe power flows from the barrel of a gun and they don't need to obey the constitution, what do you expect to happen.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Because that was their whole purpose was to represent the Constitutional Convention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? 2 men can represent the opinions of 56? How do the Federalist Papers represent the views of Randolph, whose opinion of the Constitution changed with the weather?

[ QUOTE ]
If other delegates disagreed with what they were saying, they would have done so publicly and on record.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure of this?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Madison wrote the damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Madison is responsible for the style of the document, not the content. I’ve read parts of his Notes and I get the impression that he seldom spoke on the Convention floor. Madison simply codified what the majority of the delegates told him they wanted and even then the style of the document was entrusted to a committee, not Madison alone.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
James Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

And such powers include the power "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."

Didn't Madison write this too?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

And what was Madison’s original intent when he was serving as Secretary of State for a president who some say was violating the Constitution when he bought foreign land from France?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress has the power to negotiate treaties...

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with that though. I think they're good enough, all we have, and what they write makes complete sense for a constitution that basically served to make sure we didn't end up with another King George.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the main point is that it is *not* all we have. we have a great deal of discussion about what peoples thoughts were in that time, and the federalist and the massively bigger anti-federalist papers show that.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates.



straw man argument.



You are either ignorant, a fool or both.

Quote:
I mean the federalist and anti federalist papers are pretty much a lot of discussion.



Were any of the Anti-Federalist Papers written by delegates to the Constitutional Convention? If not, then the anti-Federalist papers don't represent anyone's original intent. And furthermore the Constituion represents the majority opinion of the Federalists, not the Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were in no position to explain the original intent of a docuement they didn't want to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) why am I an ignorant fool for pointiong out that the journal and madisons notes are not the only record? ad hominem btw.

b) so if in the anti-federalist papers there was a lot of discussion about "promoting the general welfare" and what that meant and how everyone agreed on what it meant, then you don't think that that's relevant? remember, you're position is that no one today knows what "promoting the general welfare" meant back then.

[flaja]

[ 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 ]
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; the House of Representatives has no role to play in negotiating or ratifying treaties. Since you know so much about this document, perhaps you should read it once in a while.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with that though. I think they're good enough, all we have, and what they write makes complete sense for a constitution that basically served to make sure we didn't end up with another King George.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can the Anti-Federalist Papers explain anyone’s original intent? The only original intent the Anti-Federalists had was to not have the Constitution at all.

I think the main point is that it is *not* all we have. we have a great deal of discussion about what peoples thoughts were in that time, and the federalist and the massively bigger anti-federalist papers show that.

[/ QUOTE ]