Very true and a strong argument to pick a President whom will appoint Judges
that prefer not to create law but rather interpret.....nonetheless if one
believes in this country, its laws, heritage and potential.....picking which
laws you agree with and claiming everything else illegal is downright
stupid...among other things. Rod
Well ... SOCTUS kind of seized more power than they were actually granted
by the Constitution back when they heard Marbury v. Madison. But in any
case, it doesn't matter if the SCOTUS does not choose to "Defend And Protect
The Constitution" as their swearing in declares. Defending And Protecting
does not mean making up new law from whole cloth as the recent courts
have done, nor does it include ignore clear overreaching by the legislature
which the court has been ignoring in large part since the time of FDR (and
No. I am reflecting the very well documented intent of the Framers that they
wanted a legal system of "enumerated powers". It something is not "enumerated"
as a power granted to the Federal government it is automatically forbidden
for the Feds to do. This is not some accidental thing. This was a conscious
and purposeful decision made when the Constitution was drafted and eventually
ratified. So -in this example - if the Federal government is acting upon one
of its enumerated powers and this happens to be beneficial to the economy, this
is not a problem. But if they act specifically and narrowly to benefit the
economy, this is forbidden because 'improving the economy' is not an enumerated
power granted to the Federal government.
I read the Declaration and the Constitution every single year. I also take a
at that time to read something from on the Framers or one of their intellectual
influencers like Locke. I am certain they would be disgusted with what the
Federal government has become: A low-grade do-gooding institution that
practices wealth redistribution at the point of a gun (or at least the
threat of same - try not paying your taxes and see what happens).
We have essentially abandoned the key precept of the
Constitution ("preserve Liberty") and replaced with a gooey feel-good version
of government as everyone's Mommy (the Liberals) or Daddy (the Conservatives).
Instead of "preserve Liberty" we now demand that "government should do good
we just don't agree on which "good things" they should do. This abandonment
of liberty as the central purpose of government comes at a very high price.
We are getting less and less liberty AND fewer and fewer "good things". This is
possible because of an unholy alliance between the legislature, executive branch,
SCOTUS, and, most of all, the voting public, who have turned their backs on what
actually made the American experiment work. In less than 5 decades of living
(I am an immigrant) I have seen:
1) A decline in personal liberty
2) An increase in average taxation
3) An increasing portion of the population demanding whatever they want and
calling it a "right"
4) And increasing level of Federal government involvement in virtually
every aspect of what ought properly to be private: Education, savings,
healthcare, recreational substance use just to name a few ... NONE of which
exist as subjects of enumerated power for the Federal government.
5) A demand by the population that government solve all problems on their behalf.
In short, we shall surely get what we've asked for. A big, bloated,
bureaucracy put in place by the sheeple so they can raid each other's wallets.
In the mean time Liberty has left the building (or is at leas on Her way out) ...
No, this is not *my* wishlist. It was the intent of the Framers. But it's too
Americans as a whole would rather loot each other than be free. I won't live
to see the end game, and for that at least, I am grateful. But it is tragic
nation that transformed the world in less than 250 years - a world that had been
for most people in the prior 10 millenia - will disappear with a whimper from
greedy, and dishonest citizens who want what they have not earned for themselves
demand their government steal it from other people. RIP.
P.S. If you don't think so, ask yourself just why the dollar is so weak at the
Here's a hint. By tinkering with monetary policy, the dollar can be
so that old debt it paid back with relatively weaker dollars. Why do we
"need" to do that? Because the sheeple put the Feds on a major spending
ever since the 1960s, so we have debt - a lot of debt. I am always amused
to hear the anti-war bunch squealing about how much money is being spent
the military. It is a pittance compared the sheeple's looting of the
treasure for their pet social entitlement programs.
Your question is more complicated than you think. It can't be answered with a
simple yes or no. The answer is sometimes Yes, sometimes No, and sometimes Yes
The role of all courts, including the SCT, is simply to decide cases other
parties bring to the courts for resolution. In deciding those cases, the courts
have to make rulings on what the law is. Technically, those rulings are binding
only on the parties to that case. But to avoid inconsistent judgments, the
courts follow a principle that, once an issue has been decided a certain way,
the courts on future cases will decide the same issue the same way. Lower
courts are obligated to follow the decisions of higher courts, which can
overrule themselves but are reluctant to do so for many reasons.
Courts can't simply come out and say something is or is not constitutional.
When they rule on such things, it is always in the context of a case someone has
brought before them. What the issue is, and who the parties are, and the
particular facts of a case, can make the answer to your question very
Don't change the subject. The subject is the preamble. Here's what the United
States Supreme Court had to say on the subject:
"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people
ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the
source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly
granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those
so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution
was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction
and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the
United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express
delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."
Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358 (U.S. 1905).
Now that all the Constitutional lawyers have had their say, I have to
go out to the shop and replace the belt on a 10" bandsaw, tune a 16"
Steel City bandsaw, and put the tables on a 15" Craftsman planer.
After that, I have to set up to write a handle-replacment article,
which means cleaning up a fall's worth of mess, moving some studio
flash units and cleaning off the top of a battered workbench.
Have fun with the blather.
The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
Sadly so. Here's what happened. In the throes of the depression, Franklin
Roosevelt wanted the federal government to jump start the economy by doing
things it clearly was not authorized to do under the Constitution. But he
couldn't get the laws he wanted to stand up. The darn Supreme Court kept
declaring them unconstitutional. So he threatened to have Congress increase the
Supreme Court from 9 to 15 judges, and pack it with new blood who would support
him. This pressure led the Supremes to back off, which led to a massive
expansion of the federal government to what we have today. One of the things
they did was to use the clause in the Constitution that says Congress shall have
the power to regulate commerce among the states in a way it was never intended.
Before Roosevelt, the clause meant what it says - the commerce clause was used
to regulate commerce. Now, it's used to regulate schools, small businesses, and
a horde of other things it was never intended to do. Here's how it works.
Suppose there's a small local bakery in your town. It hires only local labor,
buys its flour and ingredients locally, and sells its baked goods out of its
front store. That doesn't look much like interstate commerce, does it? But the
local mill it buys its flour from buys the wheat it grinds into flour from a
farmer who raised the wheat on his farm fifty miles away, which just happens to
be across state lines. The result? The local bakery's local purchase of wheat
has a down the line "effect" on interstate commerce, so Congress jumps in to
regulate this purely local business, regulating not only the purchase of its
flour, but how much it pays its employees, the bakery's working conditions, and
on and on and on ...
You get the idea? Our federal government finds its power to grow so large, not
from the preamble saying the Constitution's purpose is to promote the general
welfare, but from a gross distortion of the commerce clause and similar
distortions of similar grants of power. Among other things, the result has been
a virtual disappearance of the 9th and 10 Amendments.
That, and the fact that the citizens of the US foolishly allowed
themselves to be suckered into allowing the federal government to institute
a direct tax on the citizens through the income tax enabled by the 16'th
amendment. It started out small, but has now grown to a huge burden on
citizens. In doing this, it has used its power of the purse to strong-arm
states into implementing laws that the fed still believes are out of bounds
for federal law. The force is the threat of denying return of monies from
taxes taken from the citizens of those states via the income tax.
Something tells me the framers had this kind of blackmail in mind when they
denied the federal government the ability to levy direct taxes on the
citizens of the states of the union.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
force at its disposal.
1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.
2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.
You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice to
actually control economics short of using violent force. In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively. After all,
if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas, they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.
Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush, Clinton,
Bush seem to think).
No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?
I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
"Supreme Law of the Land".
And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but an
opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not talking
about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation intended
to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it not?
If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?
Oh, _beat_ that straw man. Tariffs are not "controlling economics",
they are controlling the prices of imports.
How so? It costs more to bring something into China than it does for
the Chinese to bring an equivalent product into the US. So Americans
buy Chinese goods but Chinese don't buy American goods.
And the Chinese, who have Americans outnumbered 3 to 1 care about this
Yes, they are. And you would deny them. To what purpose would you do
So poor people who don't buy much don't pay any tax and rich people
who buy more pay lots of tax. Sounds like a "soak the rich" scheme to
me, no matter how you sugarcoat it.
And what happens if everybody gets pissed off at the government and
decides to keep their spending below the limit at which the refund
exceeds the taxes paid?
Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).
i.e., you would like to be able to mold the Constitution into anything
that you feel would be good at any one time. That is not how or why it was
written. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Nothing
in there about being a "living, breathing document that says whatever an
activist judiciary or other authority says at any time". Instead there is
concern about a runaway federal government and how the constitution was
designed to limit the powers of the federal government.
OK, you really do view the be all and end all of federal power to be
whatever some activist federal judge says it is. I fear for our country
with this kind of viewpoint. You are basically enabling the government,
through judicial fiat to do whatever the @#$% it wants to do with no
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
I remember hearing about war bonds, I'm not old enough to have bought
I also remember some of the lunatic fringe claiming that FDR
wanted war to pull the US out of the Depression--those megalomaniacs
trying to conquer the world must has escaped their attention...
A living breathing approach is certainly appropriate when considering
such things as what constitutes "cruel and unusual". It is not such
a good thing when considering what constitutes 'interstate commerce.'
Yes I remember war bonds, bought lots of them, a $0.10 red or $0.25
green stamp at a time out of my school lunch money.
Same was true of my grammar school classmates.
Also remember the ration coupon books for almost everything,
especially gasoline and tires.
There was no butter, only margarine, which by law was white, thanks to
the dairy lobby.
If you wanted yellow margarine, a little packet of colored dye was
included that you could mix with the margarine to color it.
People had lots of money, with good reason.
There was nothing to buy.
All materials were directed to the war effort to support your son,
daughter, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or whatever family member(s), or
maybe the next door neighbor's kin, who had gone off to war.
If you want too spout off, then at least have some knowledge of what
the f++k you are talking about.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.