Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 1
QuoteYou get an A- .
Hmm... not half bad for being home sick and doped up on cold medicine. What'd I mess up on?
Andy9o8 1
QuoteNuthin'. Just don't want you gettin' cocky.
TomAiello 26
QuoteWhy 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:
QuoteDeclaration
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.
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt 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.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
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.
quade 4
QuoteQuade, 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.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 4
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteI 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.
quade 4
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.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteYou 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.
jcd11235 0
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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou 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.
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.
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