0
rushmc

Able to do under which power?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Obama Power!

He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies.

What's next?



YOUR company - Maybe Mine - Ooooh wouldn't that be grand! At least I could maybe get that small business loan without being a minority.

Oh - Wait . . .
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So I will mark you down as not caring about the power grab.



OR, you could mark me down as caring more about the economy and having people working than on welfare.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.



What is their incentive going to be when the government takes over small businesses?

Then - The gov't will have to make you work by gunpoint?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

So I will mark you down as not caring about the power grab.



OR, you could mark me down as caring more about the economy and having people working than on welfare.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.



What is their incentive going to be when the government takes over small businesses?

Then - The gov't will have to make you work by gunpoint?



There is a threshold under which the government just won't care at all if a particular company goes under. My guess is that's somewhere around the bottom of the Fortune 100 (maybe 50). I'm not saying that the government should prop up all of the companies in the Fortune 100; let me make THAT clear. However, when you're talking about the major money and employers of the country, I think it is a justifiable concern as to what their well being is.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The last I checked, the oil companies have more than enough cash, so I don't see how the government could wield any power over them. The only reason the government has been able to ask the automakers to do anything is because they're in desperate need of cash.



Precisely. Any talk of nationalizing rich oil companies is more idiotic fear mongering.

The items being nationalized, either on paper or in effect, are failing companies. Exxon isn't failing even at this lower oil price, and they're definitely not going to be weaker if oil goes over $100/barrel again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Precisely. Any talk of nationalizing rich oil companies is more idiotic fear mongering.

The items being nationalized, either on paper or in effect, are failing companies. Exxon isn't failing even at this lower oil price, and they're definitely not going to be weaker if oil goes over $100/barrel again.



I agree, besides, considering the globalized nature of those companies, I don't see how it would even be possible. We might be able to nationalize our oil reserves but not the companies. Of course you'd have to shake all of the oil money out of Congress's DNA and I don't think that's possible without some torch and pitchfork driven "change".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps you should examine more closely the Law of Nations clause in Section 8 of Article I.



I have done so. In fact, I just finished re-reading Vattel's Law of Nations in it's entirety, even though I do not believe the use of that phrase in the Constitution to be a direct citation to his work, but rather a general reference to what we, today, call "international law".

I am totally unable to see why you feel that your citation of a clause relating to piracy and international law somehow relates to the discussion about the limits of Federal power,

Can you explain clearly what relation you see there?

Please do not simply throw out links to primary sources, or suggest that I re-examine the materials, and then conclude that the matter is clear.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

… I do not believe the use of that phrase in the Constitution to be a direct citation to his work, but rather a general reference to what we, today, call "international law".



Why would they need to "define" offenses against international law? Why capitalize Law and Nations? Certainly at least some of the Founding Fathers were familiar with The Law of Nations. They would have understood the potential for misinterpretation if they misused that particular phrase.

On the other hand, international law was something of a foreign (so to speak) concept at that time. Treaties are mentioned, however, in Article II, where the President is given a figurehead position, backed by the advice, consent of the Senate. It's unlikely that they would used a term other than treaties in Article I, had the Founding Fathers been referring to such a similar concept.

Quote

I am totally unable to see why you feel that your citation of a clause relating to piracy and international law somehow relates to the discussion about the limits of Federal power, Can you explain clearly what relation you see there?



If you can read both the clause and Vattel's work and seriously not understand how that relates to Congress having been entrusted with a great deal of power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can read both the clause and Vattel's work and seriously not understand how that relates to Congress having been entrusted with a great deal of power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.



You cant explain it because it is not true. Comment based on the Federalist Papers.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power.



Tom if that were the case (and you're lucky as hell it's not) then virtually every bill would require a Constitutional Amendment due to parsing.

The very concept of "that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed" is almost unique to the US. It is, in fact, what allows people (and Congress) to do "new" things.



From what I remember from my Constitutional Law classes...

The FEDERAL government (executive, legislative, judicial) has enumerated powers. Certain powers are "reserved" for them by the Constitution, and some powers are shared between them and the states. Therefore, those powers that are not specifically allowed to them under the Constitution are not theirs. An act is only permissible if the Constitution says it is.

The powers that are not specifically allowed to the federal government then belong to STATE governments or the people, which sounds closer to the example you were citing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why capitalize Law and Nations?



In the common usage of the english language at that time, capitalization was much more common than it is today.

With roots in german (where every noun is capitalized), english has moved slowly over time to our modern form (with "proper" nouns only getting capital letters).

For example, in the original text of the Declaration of Independence, all of the following words and phrases are capitalized. I don't think they were all references to specific published works, nor do I believe that any such works should be viewed as incorporated wholly into the document by reference:

Quote

Declaration
States
America
Course (as in, "in the Course of human events")
Laws of Nature
Nature's God
Creator
Rights
Life
Liberty
Happiness
Governments
Men
Form
Government
Right
People
Government
Safety
Happiness
Governments
Despotism
Government
Guards
Colonies
Systems
Government
King
Great Britain
Tyranny
States
Facts



And that's just in the first three paragraphs.

You can compare full text versions of the founding documents with original and modernized capitalization here.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

It says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power.



Tom if that were the case (and you're lucky as hell it's not) then virtually every bill would require a Constitutional Amendment due to parsing.

The very concept of "that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed" is almost unique to the US. It is, in fact, what allows people (and Congress) to do "new" things.



From what I remember from my Constitutional Law classes...

The FEDERAL government (executive, legislative, judicial) has enumerated powers. Certain powers are "reserved" for them by the Constitution, and some powers are shared between them and the states. Therefore, those powers that are not specifically allowed to them under the Constitution are not theirs. An act is only permissible if the Constitution says it is.



We're talking though about legislation, which is allowed by the Constitution and is in fact the chief role of Congress.

See Article 1, Section 8.
In pertinent part:
Quote


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.



No separate and specific part of the Constitution need be required for each and every law they pass (which is how it would be parsed otherwise).

This whole thing is what blows up this stupid "Enumerated Powers Act" that people keep trying to shove down Congress' throat every time they find themselves not in power. If that were to ever pass, absolutely nothing would ever get done.

Most of those people call themselves Libertarians, but are in fact obstructionists. I heard a great line the other day, "A Libertarian is an Anarchist with money." I'm not sure that's 100% true, but it does get the point across that there are some people that just don't find any form of government acceptable because it means they'll have to participate and make some sort of personal sacrifice. I'm sorry, but that just does not work. Get over it folks, we all have to pay our taxes and play by the rules.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


We're talking though about legislation, which is allowed by the Constitution and is in fact the chief role of Congress.

See Article 1, Section 8.
In pertinent part:

Quote


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.



No separate and specific part of the Constitution need be required for each and every law they pass (which is how it would be parsed otherwise)...



Quade, it's right there in what you posted- "all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." That's the limit right there! If it's not part of executing the enumerated powers, it's not a law they're supposed to be passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quade, it's right there in what you posted- "all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." That's the limit right there! If it's not part of executing the enumerated powers, it's not a law they're supposed to be passing.



And go back to the top of the thread and reread through its entirety.

There are people that are arguing that no law can be written unless it's specifically authorized by the Constitution.

I, on the other hand, admit that there are some specific things that Congress is not allowed to create laws about, but (and this is the point I'm arguing) they are allowed a huge amount of leeway because of how the Constitution is written. It simply could not be otherwise.

Think about it. Where in the Constitution is it specifically written that the government has the authority to make laws regarding nuclear power or airplanes or any one of a number of technological devices that have come into existence? Yet these laws are absolutely required.

Congress has to be able to make laws regarding new ideas and technologies all the time. Requiring specific authorization on each would require, essentially, an Amendment every time some new issue came up and new issues are ALWAYS coming up.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Courts have ruled repeatedly that the federal government may regulate nuclear power under the commerce clause, and as airplanes frequently cross state lines, those would probably be the same. As for technology, airwaves cross state lines, and regulations of technology using airwaves would also probably fall under the commerce clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you're missing the broader point, maybe even on purpose.



No, you're missing my point. The federal government was intended to be a government of limited powers. If there is a situation where congress needs to be able to regulate something that is clearly outside of its powers, that is why we have an amendment process. The Constitution is not a document written in stone, and changes can be made if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me be more specific then.

Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You get an A- .



Hmm... not half bad for being home sick and doped up on cold medicine. What'd I mess up on?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

:P
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


For example, in the original text of the Declaration of Independence, all of the following words and phrases are capitalized. I don't think they were all references to specific published works, nor do I believe that any such works should be viewed as incorporated wholly into the document by reference:



Interesting that you would use the Declaration of Independence as a red herring rather than address the points made about the Constitution. [:/]
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

You get an A- .



Hmm... not half bad for being home sick and doped up on cold medicine. What'd I mess up on?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

:P


Quote


The FEDERAL government (executive, legislative, judicial) has enumerated powers. Certain powers are "reserved" for them by the Constitution, and some powers are shared between them and the states. Therefore, those powers that are not specifically allowed to them under the Constitution are not theirs. An act is only permissible if the Constitution says it is.

The powers that are not specifically allowed to the federal government then belong to STATE governments or the people, which sounds closer to the example you were citing.



Said that. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0