Reading the Constitution in The House of Representatives

[FIGJAM]

I believe it's "Dog and Pony show".

[tamarakay]

You would think they would have so many more things to occupy their time. I intially thought that it would be a good idea to make them pass a test about things like the constitution and the bill of rights, but then they would get into a whole war on curriculum etc.

[lucky420]

FigJam,
I stand corrected... lol. Guess my mind was on Unicorns and Sparkle Ponies.

[Elderberry]

well allow me some editorial room...

grandstanding=horse and pony show

=rodeo

LOL yes, then I did say that. Frankly, I thought you were referring to something else...exactly what else, I don't quite remember now.

JK

[Eric]

And so it begins. Those who scream the loudest about the sacredness of the Constitution are the first to rush to change it.

Interestingly, they want to change an Amendment with a statute, which, as I mentioned with Prohibition, isn't possible.

If the left tried to do it the right would be raising holy hell. Oh, wait, they are raising it with Health Care. Apparently it only applies to one side. (I honestly don't know about the legality of the Individual Mandate. I'm interested to see how it plays out)

The 14th Amendment itself was passed because the Congress was afraid the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (freeing the slaves) would be declared unconstitutional. They understood they had to change the actual Constitution to ensure it was legal.

Am I too old for law school? Can I get in with a 25 year old high school diploma?

[Elderberry]

And so it begins. Those who scream the loudest about the sacredness of the Constitution are the first to rush to change it.

Interestingly, they want to change an Amendment with a statute, which, as I mentioned with Prohibition, isn't possible.

If the left tried to do it the right would be raising holy hell. Oh, wait, they are raising it with Health Care. Apparently it only applies to one side. (I honestly don't know about the legality of the Individual Mandate. I'm interested to see how it plays out)

The 14th Amendment itself was passed because the Congress was afraid the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (freeing the slaves) would be declared unconstitutional. They understood they had to change the actual Constitution to ensure it was legal.

Am I too old for law school? Can I get in with a 25 year old high school diploma?

I've read quite a bit on this and if I were betting, I'd put all I had on it being constitutional.

JK

[ygmir]

yeah, I really don't like the idea of gov. demanding I buy anything........and, in the same breath, I like the idea, of mandatory car insurance.
Although, they are different mechanisms, I guess.

I'm conflicted with that one.

[Elderberry]

yeah, I really don't like the idea of gov. demanding I buy anything........and, in the same breath, I like the idea, of mandatory car insurance.
Although, they are different mechanisms, I guess.

I'm conflicted with that one.

I am enjoying you being conflicted on this.

But, if they would have passed the bill with the public option, nobody would have had to pay! (well, not directly, anyway)

I wish I would have saved all the links to the ton of stuff I've read on the decisions of the courts on the suits already filed. The most interesting was the one in which the judge did rule that it was unconstitutional...hearing the rebuttal and why he was wrong in his decision was very interesting.

If memory serves, there actually isn't any enforcement other than if you have a tax refund due and don't have insurance, they will take the money from your refund. Additionally, if you can't afford to pay, there are subsidies that reduce your contribution to almost nothing. Interestingly enough, the fact that the IRS is the collector/enforcer on this is one of the reasons that it will be found constitutional if it gets to the supreme court.

JK

[Eric]

yeah, I really don't like the idea of gov. demanding I buy anything........and, in the same breath, I like the idea, of mandatory car insurance.
Although, they are different mechanisms, I guess.

I'm conflicted with that one.

I've actually done some reading on it today. This quote is from the Huffington Post, which had a nice concise breakdown, but I know some people will discard it immediately. I look at Politico & even Fox News for their opinions on things, so I hope people will look at this even if they think they're going to disagree. You can't form an opinion by only listening to one side of the argument unless you just want to admit you're biased and only know & want to know information that agrees with what you already think.

• The "Power to lay and collect Taxes" to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States" (article I, section 8 ), which gives the federal government broad authority to further national policies, such as ensuring health care for the poor (Medicaid) and provide security for older Americans (Social Security).

• The power to establish "an uniform rule of Naturalization" (art. I, sec 8 ), which means that only Congress can enact immigration reform, and also that state anti-immigration laws, like Arizona's SB 1070, are an unconstitutional infringement of Congress's exclusive power to regulate immigration.

• The power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" (art. I, sec 8 ), which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, the national health care industry.

• The crucial power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" (art. I, sec 8 ) for carrying out all constitutional powers granted to the federal government, which means, for example, that Congress can require individuals who can afford it to obtain health insurance in order to carry out its authority to regulate the interstate health insurance industry and ensure affordable, non-discriminatory health care.

A big thing to remember in this "strict Constitutionalist" era- the Constitution is a radical, progressive document, written by people who had overthrown their legal government (the British), and who had already tried a weak central government document in the Articles of Confederacy.

The Constitution is designed to have a strong central government, and is designed to be revised as needed. It is not a weak central government document, regardless of what people what to believe.

[ygmir]

yeah, I really don't like the idea of gov. demanding I buy anything........and, in the same breath, I like the idea, of mandatory car insurance.
Although, they are different mechanisms, I guess.

I'm conflicted with that one.

I've actually done some reading on it today. This quote is from the Huffington Post, which had a nice concise breakdown, but I know some people will discard it immediately. I look at Politico & even Fox News for their opinions on things, so I hope people will look at this even if they think they're going to disagree. You can't form an opinion by only listening to one side of the argument unless you just want to admit you're biased and only know & want to know information that agrees with what you already think.


just another reason to admire your intellect. I wish, others, would take this attitude. Both sides, to me, are at times turd heads and prophets. So many folks dismiss, out of hand, information and opinion, from the "other" side......


[quot
A big thing to remember in this "strict Constitutionalist" era- the Constitution is a radical, progressive document, written by people who had overthrown their legal government (the British), and who had already tried a weak central government document in the Articles of Confederacy.

The Constitution is designed to have a strong central government, and is designed to be revised as needed. It is not a weak central government document, regardless of what people what to believe.

yeah, that's interesting to me, too.
I am under the belief, that the "central gov." was meant to be very limited in scope. Only doing what nothing else can do, like defense, interstate commerce, etc.

[Elderberry]

Here's a good read...The New York Times' annotated guide to the Constitution
http://documents.nytimes.com/annotated-constitution

I found it interesting that some people actually interpret the Air Force as being unconstitutional because it is not authorized anywhere in the constitution...only mentioned are army and navy. Hmmm....I wonder why they forgot to mention the Air Force?

JK

[ygmir]

Here's a good read...The New York Times' annotated guide to the Constitution
http://documents.nytimes.com/annotated-constitution

I found it interesting that some people actually interpret the Air Force as being unconstitutional because it is not authorized anywhere in the constitution...only mentioned are army and navy. Hmmm....I wonder why they forgot to mention the Air Force?

JK

that is such an interesting thought.
Should the Const. have been amended to include?
Strictly speaking, probably.
But, also, things must change with the times, and, one can see how the Const. was created, to allow for that.
I do, though, think it's a slippery slope, to wander far and wide, from what is written, without "due process" as such.

Human dynamics, being what they are, dictate nothing lasts, or works, forever, as intended.

OF all things, I just wish gov. was more transparent, and, accountable to us.

[Elderberry]

Here's a good read...The New York Times' annotated guide to the Constitution
http://documents.nytimes.com/annotated-constitution

I found it interesting that some people actually interpret the Air Force as being unconstitutional because it is not authorized anywhere in the constitution...only mentioned are army and navy. Hmmm....I wonder why they forgot to mention the Air Force?

JK

that is such an interesting thought.
Should the Const. have been amended to include?
Strictly speaking, probably.
But, also, things must change with the times, and, one can see how the Const. was created, to allow for that.
I do, though, think it's a slippery slope, to wander far and wide, from what is written, without "due process" as such.

Human dynamics, being what they are, dictate nothing lasts, or works, forever, as intended.

OF all things, I just wish gov. was more transparent, and, accountable to us.

You are correct, which is why we have that pesky third branch of government--The Supreme Court.

And you'll love this, as it was the Republicans and the Tea Party that promised more transparency and openness:


POLITICO print edition p. 1, "GOP Vows 'End to Business as Usual.'" http://politi.co/gu5Mgs

THE NARRATIVE - "GOP bends its own new House rules," by Jake Sherman, with Darren Goode: "After calling for bills to go through a regular committee process, the bill that would repeal the health care law will not go through a single committee. Despite promising a more open amendment process for bills, amendments for the health care repeal will be all but shut down. After calling for a strict committee attendance list to be posted online, Republicans backpedaled and ditched that from the rules. They promised constitutional citations for every bill but have yet to add that language to early bills. Republicans say there are subtle reasons for these moves and that they certainly will follow their own rules throughout the 112th Congress. But the hedging on some promises shows just how hard it will be to always match the sharp rhetoric of the campaign with the ugly and complex work of running the House. ... The committee attendance list - which had the potential to be used as a weapon in campaigns for those who miss meetings - never had a chance. Behind closed doors in the Cannon House Office Building on Tuesday evening, Republicans, led by conservative Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, swatted away the provision. Many in House leadership circles are hardly pleased that the conference dropped a plan that would have had committee attendance posted." http://bit.ly/dM8fvq


JK

[Eric]

I like how they're not reading the whole document; by not reading the parts superseded by Amendments they get to leave out the whole "slave" part that dominated American politics for almost the first 100 years of the country and almost tore it apart.

I am under the belief, that the "central gov." was meant to be very limited in scope. Only doing what nothing else can do, like defense, interstate commerce, etc.

That was the Articles of Confederation. If they had stayed in force the US probably wouldn't have gotten farther than the Mississippi River (if it made it past the Appalachians), and if the War of 1812 had happened we would have been crushed- no US Army, only state militias. Granted, the War happened because the US wanted to expand where Britain didn't want to go (i.e: we started it). As there was no national army under the Articles we might never have declared war.

Since one of the reasons the Articles were dumped was the inability to raise taxes (and no taxes= no government) meaning the US couldn't pay off its debt from the Revolution, if they had stayed in force there's no way we could have bought Louisiana off the French when it came up for sale. Mexico or a successor state would control the western US, since there would be no US Army to take it.

The US Constitution, as written, gives us a strong Federal Government.

Article Six, Section Two notes:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Note: "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." means the Federal Government is supreme in spite of anything the States have in their own Constitutions or laws. Again, it makes Federal Law supreme.

The main body of the Constitution sets up Federal law as supreme, not just the Constitution. The states, in ratifying the Constitution, purposely made themselves weaker than the Federal government.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 (the "Necessary and Proper Clause") gives Congress the right to make laws:

The Congress shall have 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.

I love this thread!

[Elderberry]

Eric, you wouldn't think anything you said was true based on how the Tea Baggers and many of the Republicans are interpreting what's in the Constitution.

JK

[ygmir]

This is very enlightening.......Thanks you guys.
I'm learning stuff, and, perhaps, adjust some attitudes.

JK:
I gotta say, your "right wing witch hunt" and unending accusations of wrongdoing, do leave me a little disappointed.
you never, that I see, allow that "the left" has done anything wrong, and, if so, you always say, or imply, "not as bad as the right".

I just don't buy it.
I think both sides are just as despicable.
Sure, as a partisan, you see "your side" as not doing as much, or as bad.

But, from my "disenchanted, cynical" side, they're both turds in the punchbowl.......the only difference is whether it's a Baby Ruth or Snickers.

[mdmf007]

I had really hoped any person elected to Congress was already intimately familiar with our constitution. Should it be read on the floor in chambers? No, I think it should be required homework though.

[Eric]

I gotta say, your "right wing witch hunt" and unending accusations of wrongdoing, do leave me a little disappointed.

Yg, I understand where JK is coming from.

Let me give you an example- the Right is very vocal on "states rights" and "let things be solved at the state level", yet when states started allowing gay marriages suddenly those same people where calling for a Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage. So it "states rights" if its what they want, but Federal law if they don't like it.

The left isn't perfect, but they are less likely to keep changing the rules when they don't like the results.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Sorry Eric and JK, but I'm pretty much with YG on this one. Both sides have a way of viewing things thru their "rose colored glasses", depending on their interpretive (left/right) view.

[ygmir]

I gotta say, your "right wing witch hunt" and unending accusations of wrongdoing, do leave me a little disappointed.

Yg, I understand where JK is coming from.

Let me give you an example- the Right is very vocal on "states rights" and "let things be solved at the state level", yet when states started allowing gay marriages suddenly those same people where calling for a Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage. So it "states rights" if its what they want, but Federal law if they don't like it.

The left isn't perfect, but they are less likely to keep changing the rules when they don't like the results.

perhaps, my issue is lumping the whole "right" in with the folks you refer to here.
I really feel, there are many, and probably most, of the folks on the right, and left, that are just good people, actually wanting the same things, just having differing ideas as to how to achieve them.


and, were I more learned, or informed, I'd bet I could come up with examples of the left changing the rules in the same manner.

I still think they both stink.
perhaps one smells like dog crap, the other cat crap.....but, both stink.


What about all the huge anti war rallies? where have they gone?
I'd submit, many are gone, because "their guy" is now in charge.
Screaming for immediate withdrawal, and, where has that gone?

[Dr. Pyro]

Mexico or a successor state would control the western US

They already do.

[Elderberry]

This is very enlightening.......Thanks you guys.
I'm learning stuff, and, perhaps, adjust some attitudes.

JK:
I gotta say, your "right wing witch hunt" and unending accusations of wrongdoing, do leave me a little disappointed.
you never, that I see, allow that "the left" has done anything wrong, and, if so, you always say, or imply, "not as bad as the right".

I just don't buy it.
I think both sides are just as despicable.
Sure, as a partisan, you see "your side" as not doing as much, or as bad.

But, from my "disenchanted, cynical" side, they're both turds in the punchbowl.......the only difference is whether it's a Baby Ruth or Snickers.

I call out the left and right equally when deserved. The problem is that the right deserve it a whole lot more than the left, in general, so it appears that I am favoring one over the other. When in reality the right has been way more deserving of calling out for having way more egregious transgressions.

Jk

[goathead]

I call out the left and right equally when deserved.

Bullshit !!!!!

[Elderberry]

I call out the left and right equally when deserved.

Bullshit !!!!!

LMAO

No really, I do. Though I do lean slightly toward the left.

JK

[Eric]

Mexico or a successor state would control the western US

They already do.

In a sense I'll even agree with you on this. Without the illegal labor of Mexicans and others, the economy of the western US would fall apart.

Very few people to pick the fields in California's Central Valley or in Arizona, and the ones available could charge a premium, raising prices on staples we're used to getting cheap; a huge chunk of the construction industry would fall away (if we still had one after the crash); I would bet that a majority of restaurants other than fast food would close or have to raise their prices (if they could get the produce); janitorial services in most major cities would come to a halt...

Our drug laws also let drug gangs from not just Mexico but from China and other countries run amok in our borders, not just in the west. The southern parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico & Texas (along with Florida) are bearing the brunt of it, but it's at least slightly contained.

Now if you mean it in the sense that the government of Mexico has control over it, um, no. If you mean it in the sense that California & Arizona are soon to be Hispanic-majority states..... well, now you know how the WASP's felt 100-150 years ago when the Irish & Italian Catholics started to outnumber them. And we all know that America disintegrated in the last 100 years. If we were still funding schools properly these kids would be as fully Americanized as me, who comes from another wave of unwanted immigrants who were going to "destroy the US"- Eastern European Jews (second generation on my dads side)



Both sides are way too in bed with lobbyists and industry to protect the public in any way, and I'll agree with Yggy, they all stink to a degree.

[ygmir]

I call out the left and right equally when deserved.

Bullshit !!!!!

LMAO

No really, I do. Though I do lean slightly toward the left.

JK

I hate to use cliche's.......but:

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elderberry]

OK. Then post something that someone from the left has done that was either a lie, hypocritical or just downright stupid in the last news cycle or two and let's just see my reaction. I don't defend either side when i believe they are in the wrong.

JK

[tamarakay]

i appreciate this thread. I appreciate the discussion and the back and forth. around here you just can not have a discussion like this. immediately goes to name calling and put downs. i sit in the middle of cubical hell with fox news blaring in the break room. really, i sat here reading this almost crying. rational discussion with strong beliefs. my oh my.

eric said: You can't form an opinion by only listening to one side of the argument unless you just want to admit you're biased and only know & want to know information that agrees with what you already think.

and for this first time in my life i want to be a pretty 20 something cutie pie boy -


so i could spoon with eric.

ok, that's enough emotional outburst from me for one day, back to eavesdropping

[ygmir]

OK. Then post something that someone from the left has done that was either a lie, hypocritical or just downright stupid in the last news cycle or two and let's just see my reaction. I don't defend either side when i believe they are in the wrong.

JK

awe jeeze JK.........*grabs JK, headlock, noogie, and rib tickling*.........

[Elderberry]

OK. Then post something that someone from the left has done that was either a lie, hypocritical or just downright stupid in the last news cycle or two and let's just see my reaction. I don't defend either side when i believe they are in the wrong.

JK

awe jeeze JK.........*grabs JK, headlock, noogie, and rib tickling*.........

AhHa!!! Just as I suspected; you can't find anything worthwhile to post on the left wing as of late!

JK