Finally, a solution to the 2nd Amendment

[LongBlade]

And by the way, you haven't seen my personal gun cabinet, have you?

Speaking of which, did you get the lease on that underground parking "cabinet" on 7th Street?

8)

[LongBlade]

I'm a life member of the NRA

For some reason I thought you weren't a big fan of the NRA, as their position was largely to protect hunting rifles and shotguns.

I guess I'm mistaken.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm a life member of the NRA

For some reason I thought you weren't a big fan of the NRA, as their position was largely to protect hunting rifles and shotguns.

I guess I'm mistaken.

No, you're right.  I have criticized the NRA in the past, but as a voting member, I can influence who gets on the board.  Despite their habit of compromise, they are our strongest, best hope.

[Toonces]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain this without going high and right.  I actually never considered that the meaning of of the words in the ammendment had changed from their meaning in the 1700's. 

If we continued to dig into this, I'm sure we could argue tremendously about gun control, but I will concede that the ammendment does give the individual the right to bear arms after all.

So, sometimes these discussions are worthwhile...   :)

[LongBlade]

Toonces, there is a slow dawning of appreciation that there are many places where what we have now is extra-Constitutional. All well-intended, all justified via some legal gymnastics, but none of it compliant with what is written.

One need look no further than the Commerce Clause to discover how badly abused the interpretation of that section is. Virtually all of the current deficit and overregulation can be traced to have been justified through the Commerce Clause.

That isn't to say we don't need many of the regulations and services provided by existing institutions, but it is to say that we have arrived at them unchecked by the law as intended and written.

It's all fixable with the documents we have, but it is good and right for us to examine the Constitution, consider it, and compare it to the world we live in. It is, after all, the law of the land.

[son_of_montfort]

The point is, the US government, in all of its bloated splendor, doesn't fit into the legal boundaries as defined by the rule of law.

What'cho talkin' bout Willis? This makes no sense to me. Of course the government fits into the legal boundaries as defined by rule of law... Are you saying we have things imposed by fiat? I don't follow.

Toonces, there is a slow dawning of appreciation that there are many places where what we have now is extra-Constitutional. All well-intended, all justified via some legal gymnastics, but none of it compliant with what is written.

The Constitution was never intended to be the end of government. It provides the structural basis (i.e. what branches and how they interact) and the limits of the federal government's power. I don't get the notion that we can't have institutions, particularly sub-sections of our branches of government, that were not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. The founders didn't even follow that model.

It is, after all, the law of the land.

Not to be pedantic, but the Constitution is not the actual "law" of the land. It is the basis of law. It is the yardstick for what makes a proper law. But not the actual law. You cannot run a society solely by what is in the Constitution. It is the difference between delineation of rights and the codification of statutes based on those rights.

If you want more on this, I have about 300 pages of a medieval example of which you can read...  ;)

[LongBlade]

What'cho talkin' bout Willis? This makes no sense to me. Of course the government fits into the legal boundaries as defined by rule of law... Are you saying we have things imposed by fiat? I don't follow.


The Constitution was never intended to be the end of government. It provides the structural basis (i.e. what branches and how they interact) and the limits of the federal government's power. I don't get the notion that we can't have institutions, particularly sub-sections of our branches of government, that were not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. The founders didn't even follow that model.

From Wikipedia, but it seems to be a fair assessment.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has depended on the Supreme Court's reading. During the John Marshall era the Commerce Clause was empowered and gained jurisdiction over several aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the William Rehnquist court era the Commerce Clause was restricted, thereby allowing states more control over business conducted within its borders.

(emphasis mine)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[LongBlade]

Don't take my word for it - read the document yourself. It isn't long or terribly difficult.

Come back and tell us where in it is the provision by which research on blueberries is authorized. Or light bulb efficiency.

Look, I'm not arguing that we don't need air quality standards. We do. And food safety. And I can even be persuaded that it would be more efficient to have these housed at the Federal level rather than duplicated by 50 states.

But as written, those things aren't in there. The process to amend the document is in there to allow for these developments. You can make a good case, and I'd agree, that we ought to have those things. But read it and tell me where they exist. And don't forget to read the 9th and 10th Amendment while you're at it.

[son_of_montfort]

I'm still not following. Congress has the power to make laws and power over the budget. The President signs laws into effect. The judiciary judges based on those laws.

Given that, the government has the power to make and execute law outside of what is listed in the Constitution. But those laws can't abrogate the rights listed in the Constitution.

I don't get where you are going, the Constitution is not series of statutes. Perhaps I'm confused at what you are trying to argue. We run the Federal government ONLY with the Constitution? Wasn't designed to be like that and neither Thomas Jefferson nor John Adams ran their presidencies like that (and they should know about the Constitution). You think the States should make all the laws? I think I am misreading you.

[LongBlade]

I am simply saying that a $16 trillion dollar deficit cannot easily blossom if we respect the enumerated powers:

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 a 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.

[son_of_montfort]

Actually I see a lot of ways for that deficit to hit that number. Remember, the majority of our spending for the last century has not been to researching blueberries or light bulbs, it has been going to these things (plus an unlisted Air Force... oops, should we abolish that...  ;)):

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;

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just it is what it is. I should probably work the Letter of Marque and Reprisal clause from the Constitution into my dissertations somehow... speaking of.

[LongBlade]

I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.

But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.

You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.

[Windigo]

I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.

But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.

You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.

You could save a whole bunch of money on social security if grandma and grandpa could live with the grandkids and the parents..... just saying.

[LongBlade]

I'm all for expanding the enumerated powers. No one in their right mind believes we should only have a standing military for two years.

But as we go forward, the more we allow for wiggle room via judicial interpretation, the more you run the risk that the nation will be bankrupt in ~200 years because we departed from the principles that were supposed to limit the size and scope of government.

You won't hear me arguing we don't need clean air, clean water, or healthy food. But somehow in our quest to ensure that we got to this point, which I think all of us can agree is Too Far.

You could save a whole bunch of money on social security if grandma and grandpa could live with the grandkids and the parents..... just saying.

Yup. The Founders actually intended for a minimal welfare expenditure as part of the the government. Extending that to universal health care coverage and fostering generations of welfare families, however, is beyond the scope of what was envisioned.