US constitution original intent question

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the delegates, no doubt, did not maintain a consistent opinion as to what the Constitution meant or what they wanted the federal government to be- not even in the short time between the Convention and the completion of ratification. Randolph did not support ratification, but he did support the Constitution once it was ratified and in operation. At the Convention Hamilton proposed ideas that none of the other delegates took seriously, but he eventually supported the watered-down Constitution that was ratified.

Original intent cannot be consistently and reliably found outside of the Constitutional Convention, and Madison’s Notes are the main record of what was actually discussed and approved by the Constitutional Convention- but they were not published until decades after the Convention meaning no one had a reliable record of original intent.

BTW: The official Journal of the Constitutional Convention essentially didn't record anything but the votes that were taken, and I gather that the Journal isn't always supported by Madison's Notes.

[Taso]

[ 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.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ 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 ]

Just because you say so.

[NickMPK]

Even if the Supreme Court did not change its interpretation of the commerce clause to accommodate New Deal programs, the constitution would have been amended to explicitly permit this sort of regulation, just as it was in the case of the income tax. Most federal programs that would be struck down by the 19th-century interpretation are extremely popular.

[flaja]

[ 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.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ 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.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the Supreme Court did not change its interpretation of the commerce clause to accommodate New Deal programs, the constitution would have been amended to explicitly permit this sort of regulation, just as it was in the case of the income tax. Most federal programs that would be struck down by the 19th-century interpretation are extremely popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that rabid libertarians will never understand. The Founders were often great statesmen, but none of them was a Moses. Their words were never meant to be written in stone. This is why they gave up an amendment process. (Actually Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years or so because he thought it would otherwise become too outdated to be worthwhile.) What the Founders may have found to be anathema in their day, we can easily find to be necessary in ours. The Founders and their original intent have no bearing on today’s society. If their original intent makes it difficult for us to deal with today’s socio-economic problems, then their original intent must become moot. We don’t live in the libertarians’ utopia. We live in the real world with real problems. Any would-be politician who doesn’t realize this will simply be rejected for being lunatics or ignored altogether. They have their prime arena here on the internet- where they accomplish nothing more than providing amusement or wasting people’s time.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the delegates, no doubt, did not maintain a consistent opinion as to what the Constitution meant or what they wanted the federal government to be- not even in the short time between the Convention and the completion of ratification. Randolph did not support ratification, but he did support the Constitution once it was ratified and in operation. At the Convention Hamilton proposed ideas that none of the other delegates took seriously, but he eventually supported the watered-down Constitution that was ratified.

Original intent cannot be consistently and reliably found outside of the Constitutional Convention, and Madison’s Notes are the main record of what was actually discussed and approved by the Constitutional Convention- but they were not published until decades after the Convention meaning no one had a reliable record of original intent.

BTW: The official Journal of the Constitutional Convention essentially didn't record anything but the votes that were taken, and I gather that the Journal isn't always supported by Madison's Notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

the position you take on a policy almost irrelevant. when you discuss a policy, (federalist, anti federalist), it gives a deep understanding of the issues and how the issues were thought of.

your position is not that we don't know exactly the disposition of favoriablity of the policy, your position is that we today *cannot* know what they were even talking about. which is clearly incorrect.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
the position you take on a policy almost irrelevant. when you discuss a policy, (federalist, anti federalist), it gives a deep understanding of the issues and how the issues were thought of.

[/ 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.

And specific policies still do not guarantee that the Framers’ opinions would never change.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Who do you suspect?