how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Granting the power to giveth, also to taketh. Your understanding of the Interstate Commerce Clause is not correct. There are countless quotes from people like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, etc., clearly indicating that the purpose of the clause is to keep the trade regular, as in not allowing states to create tariffs or otherwise hamper trade between them. It does not grant Congress the power to micromanage economic activity. From James Madison:
Among the several states' ...grew the abuses of the power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government. The 14th amendment was only to apply to freedmen. However, I do believe that citizens have a right to group together, and their rights as a group are equal to their rights as individuals. The 1st amendment guarantees this.
Yes, the Constitution is more centralized that the Articles of Confederation, but only for very few things. The Articles made a substantial number of trivial things very difficult, like getting passports or visas. This is why the states were agreeable to a new governing document, however, they were still equally suspicious of a central government, which is why Madison also stated that the powers of Congress are limited and defined, whereas the power of the states is undefined.
--
Time... beckoning me. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by I Use Dial:Your understanding of the Interstate Commerce Clause is not correct. There are countless quotes from people like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, etc., clearly indicating that the purpose of the clause is to keep the trade regular, as in not allowing states to create tariffs or otherwise hamper trade between them. I agree. But, remember that the founding generation couldn't fathom things like national communication, travel, etc. They couldn't even foresee their own needs just 12 years after the Revolution (when they ditched a pure "states' rights" model for a larger, more powerful government.).
Every generation since has simply done the same thing as the founding generation... seeking a more efficient, effective government.
said by I Use Dial:The 14th amendment was only to apply to freedmen. It doesn't matter what it was to do. It matters what it has done. It has made us unique among the world by granting instant citizenship to children of those who are in the country as visitors, or even illegally.
And, it has been the basis for granting the rights of individuals to corporations.
said by I Use Dial: However, I do believe that citizens have a right to group together, and their rights as a group are equal to their rights as individuals. The 1st amendment guarantees this. When a corporation lobbies government, it is not necessarily representing the association of its stockholders. Today, stockholders may invest in a corporation without agreeing to a corporation's entire agenda. They may not agree with any of it if, like most investors, they purchase an index fund like the S&P 500.
I'm ok with individuals forming political action groups and freely consenting to that agenda. A corporation isn't that.
However if a corporation chose to create a political-action group, and investors or employees freely joined and contributed, I could see the validity. Then it would be clear who's political influence is being represented as a freely-associated group.
said by I Use Dial:Yes, the Constitution is more centralized that the Articles of Confederation, but only for very few things. The anti-federalists disagreed with you. The new federal government was a massive expansion of power. Subordinating states (which had been sovereign) to the new government's power.
You'll say states were subordinated in only insignificant ways. But, the commerce, general welfare and republican-form-of-government clauses were huge loopholes. (The latter two being the basis to prevent states from withdrawing from the union.).
That's huge. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to I Use Dial
said by I Use Dial:Yes, the Constitution is more centralized that the Articles of Confederation, but only for very few things. Also, don't forget the "one-state veto rule" which existed under the Articles of Confederation. States like New York and Rhode Island vetoed proposed imposts to pay the debt of the revolution. One of the factors leading to growing demands to abandon the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation for the larger, more centralized government.
Losing the state power to veto the union's plans is a huge shift in power. When debates over the new constitution became serious, New York offered New Jersey a deal not to tax its imports, even refunding past harbor taxes if New Jersey would oppose creation of the new federal government.
The subordination of states to the new government was huge. If they wanted to preserve states rights, they would have remained with the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the founding generation wanted to sacrifice a large degree of liberty for security.
You'll say that ending the one-state veto was a narrow capitulation of power. But, the principle which the founding generation sought to correct is the same as the principle applied to interstate communications. If left to individual states it would be a race to the bottom. Each state reducing regulations to attract business to the detriment of neighboring states. | |
| reply to amigo_boy
Unfortunately I don't have time today to debate these points. You're still not correct on understanding the Constitution. The General Welfare clause is also misinterpreted - many great quotes and writings from the authors of the document support this, including Madison who points out that if the General Welfare clause were meant to allow the federal government to do anything, then why would they bother to go to such lengths immediately following the clause to explain the limitations on the powers of Congress?
To claim that because the document is abused means that the whole thing is rotten is a fallacy. The problem is with lack of respect for the rule of law. You stated that because there have been so many changes that the Constitution is no longer valid, which is also a fallacious argument. Built into the Constitution is the path to change it, as was done to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, ban alcohol, unban alcohol, etc. Tearing down the rule of law is what is at the heart of the matter, not changes in technology.
As far as shareholders go, a fool and his money are soon departed. Not researching where money is going is no justification to violate the first amendment guarantee to peaceably gather and petition the government. The irony behind all of the claims to the evils of what corporations do with 'free speech' is that the case the Supreme Court used to 'return' these rights was one involving a grass-roots 'corporation'.
--
Time... beckoning me. | |
| reply to amigo_boy
The same people who argued for the Constitution also argued that the states have the rights of nullification and even cessation.
--
Time... beckoning me. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to I Use Dial
said by I Use Dial:if the General Welfare clause were meant to allow the federal government to do anything, then why would they bother to go to such lengths immediately following the clause to explain the limitations on the powers of Congress? I didn't say these clauses could justify "anything." Just that they were included for a reason, obviously in addition to the enumerated powers. Similar to your argument, the enumerated powers can't render these clauses meaningless either.
However, the most important thing to remember is that the founding generation moved to the new constitution as part of a desire for larger, more effective and centralized government. Not the other way around (as advocates of minimal government and states' rights imply).
said by I Use Dial:You stated that because there have been so many changes that the Constitution is no longer valid, which is also a fallacious argument. I didn't say the Constitution isn't valid. I said it may not be as rigid and defined the way you insist it is. Just as the founding generation desired more effective and powerful government, each generation since has desired the same thing. And, the founding generation put rather broad grants of power in the Constitution to allow for it to be a living, breathing document. Not requiring amendment for every unforeseen change (such as the department of energy, labor, education, etc.).
You may not like that. But, you can't wave a wand and make those broad clauses vanish.
said by I Use Dial:As far as shareholders go, a fool and his money are soon departed. Not researching where money is going is no justification to violate the first amendment guarantee to peaceably gather and petition the government. The issue is whether putting your 401k money in an index fund (of 500 or 1000 companies) is a "peaceable gathering" for the purpose of petitioning government.
I don't believe anyone who does so is intending to support the political views of any of those companies. Insisting that they are (in a quest for ideological purity) undermines our system of representation.
If corporations were prohibited from exercising "free speech" as a naturally-born person, it would not prevent anyone (employed by or invested in) from exercising their free speech on behalf of the corporation, nor joining together to leverage their effort.
That's hardly a coercive exercise of government power. It simply begs the question of whether a "person" created by the state, and treated as a natural "person" who comprises the state is itself an act of coercion against those natural "persons." | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to I Use Dial
said by I Use Dial:The same people who argued for the Constitution also argued that the states have the rights of nullification and even cessation. Clearly that wasn't how it turned out when the Constitution granted the federal government the expansive power to ensure every state provides a republican form of government to its citizens. By definition, withdrawing from the union would deny its citizens such protection and be contrary to such form of government.
The debates over the constitution were dominated by hyperbole. The Bill or Rights were essentially a sop to the anti-federalists who had effectively instilled fear through hyperbole. The Bill of Rights isn't an absolute protection or definition or rights. Just as the enumerated powers (some being extremely broad) aren't limited to the challenges the founding generation faced. More accurately, both are principles to be balanced. | | |
|
MrHappy316Wish I had my tankPremium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC
1 edit | reply to I Use Dial
Tell that to my state of SC who found out pretty quick that wasn't the case
edit Response box ended up in the wrong spot this was suppose to be a response to Dial /edit | |
|
