Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[scandal 951]

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

Gary, I'd really like you to go live in an America with 50 separate and distinct state Aviation Authorities, rather than the FAA.

And 50 separate Food and Drug regulatory bodies, and no FDA.

Etc. etc. etc.

Go live in that America. I'll gladly live in ours.

I'm quite happy having an FDA, FAA, SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, EPA, OSHA, etc. Yeah there's a lot of bureaucracy. It's inevitable in a complex modern society that's filled with airplanes, pharmaceuticals, electronic trading, and multinational conglomerates. Duplicating these functions 50 times over would only introduce unnecessary waste and frictional losses. Not to mention a lack of standardization. As it is, it's a pain in the butt trying to harmonize state regulations in real estate, taxation and other areas.

Notwithstanding all of this: whether you think federal regulation is a good or a bad thing, it is unquestionably a legal thing. No serious federal judge, US Attorney, or legislator - whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative - thinks otherwise. Only the Ron Paul fringe comes up with these quirky arguments that have no legal basis.

Steve: imho, I wouldn't push the Preamble line too far. There's plenty of meat in the body of the Constitution and the Amendments, and that's where the precedents and case law gets made from, not the Preamble.

This is 2009 and not 1770. Playing games trying to figure out what the founding fathers said, while your country is falling apart, is just dumb. It's also why from being the leaders of the world you guys are now the laughing stock of the world. Who cares right? Who is going to buy your goods, your tractors etc if they think they are no good? You guys are losing credibility on a daily basis but all you can focus on is documents written centuries ago and rights issue.

Constellation: You live in the USA, right? You immigrated here from Australia? What's with all this 'you' and 'your' stuff?

If you think the American system of government is so bad, I think Quantas has several flights daily back down under.

This country was founded as a constitutional republic. It's a system of government that has seen it through a Revolution, a Civil War, 2 World Wars, any number of economic crises and recessions, Reconstruction, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights era, Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

The system works. So well in fact that many countries around the world have admired it and emulated it.

We're not "playing games" in taking the Constitution seriously as a reference for guiding the national life. This is how things are done here. I suggest you learn a bit about it before merely mocking it.

[GaryC 7]

It has been "ratified" all ready. What you want is a wholesale re-writing. That will NEVER happen, thank God. The constitution is fine the way it is thank you.

Fine based on what? Common sense indicates that if someone is good at something or has a great idea others will copy it. Funny how no one has copied it or that no country that is doing well (as in its people) use a US style open-ended (anything goes) constitution. We have separation of church and state but the government is allowed to celebrate with we the people in Aus. After all the government is there to represent we the people. Whereas in the US decision are made behind the close door of courts. Our courts are their to represent the will of the people. Not the opinion of judges or groups like the ACLU. Sorry that has been an EPIC FAIL for the country. Where your ACLU can sue county's or pretty much anyone they don't agree with. Therefore, their ideology and opinion overrides the will of the people.

How else has it served you well?

Living standard?

Crime?

Wealth? or wealth of the average Joe

Infrastructure?

Employment?

Livability?

Quality of Life?

Hey, if you don't like our constitution and the way we do things you are welcome to go elsewhere.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....that's different from your claim of each state individually, Gary.

Notice it says STATES and not citizens.

States refers to its citizens, unless you think our Founding Fathers were merely interested in geography.

[GaryC 7]

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

Gary, I'd really like you to go live in an America with 50 separate and distinct state Aviation Authorities, rather than the FAA.

And 50 separate Food and Drug regulatory bodies, and no FDA.

Etc. etc. etc.

Go live in that America. I'll gladly live in ours.

I'm quite happy having an FDA, FAA, SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, EPA, OSHA, etc. Yeah there's a lot of bureaucracy. It's inevitable in a complex modern society that's filled with airplanes, pharmaceuticals, electronic trading, and multinational conglomerates. Duplicating these functions 50 times over would only introduce unnecessary waste and frictional losses. Not to mention a lack of standardization. As it is, it's a pain in the butt trying to harmonize state regulations in real estate, taxation and other areas.

Notwithstanding all of this: whether you think federal regulation is a good or a bad thing, it is unquestionably a legal thing. No serious federal judge, US Attorney, or legislator - whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative - thinks otherwise. Only the Ron Paul fringe comes up with these quirky arguments that have no legal basis.

As I pointed out to Steven those are not social programs. They are programs that do and should fall under the federal government as spelled out in the constitution. I refer to the amendments governing inter-state commerce.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....that's different from your claim of each state individually, Gary.

Notice it says STATES and not citizens.

States refers to its citizens, unless you think our Founding Fathers were merely interested in geography.

We can go round and round if you like. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to grant all other powers not given to the states. It is pretty clear on that.

[Heracles 417]

No it does not. It inevitably gets bloated and inefficient just as ours is now. Centralized governments always fail.

No it has not. All of the top leading nations have federalist style systems. Federalist governments are not the equivalent of communism. But anyway, what do you think a federally oriented government does? It's not that different to states rights.

The federal government just has more say. The states also have much more say over the counties. I'll give you an example. In the area they wanted to build a Disney world. The local residents of that particular suburb kicked and screamed about it. Therefore, it was not built. So not only did they county loose in terms of million in revenue and taxes but so did the state. Something protected by the constitution. Downunder, the state could have and would have overridden the decision, as it would have been good for the area and the people of the state. AKa jobs which us conservatives over their love.

There is just so much wastage in States and counties. Each county has their own school board, police, bla bla bla. Whereas, under the federal system, the state manages most essential services (school, police and hospitals). Effectively eliminating wastage and socialistic bureaucracy. AKA government jobs, which is apparently something republicans hate.

End result we pay less tax there but get much much much better roads, infrastructure, parks, recreational areas for the kids, schools, hospitals, cheaper health care, cities look awesome, neighborhoods look great and so on.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Constellation

[GaryC 7]

No it does not. It inevitably gets bloated and inefficient just as ours is now. Centralized governments always fail.

No it has not. All of the top leading nations have federalist style systems. Federalist governments are not the equivalent of communism. But anyway, what do you think a federally oriented government does? It's not that different to states rights.

The federal government just has more say. The states also have much more say over the counties. I'll give you an example. In the area they wanted to build a Disney world. The local residents of that particular suburb kicked and screamed about it. Therefore, it was not built. So not only did they county loose in terms of million in revenue and taxes but so did the state. Something protected by the constitution. Downunder, the state could have and would have overridden the decision, as it would have been good for the area and the people of the state. AKa jobs which us conservatives over their love.

There is just so much wastage in States and counties. Each county has their own school board, police, bla bla bla. Whereas, under the federal system, the state manages most essential services (school, police and hospitals). Effectively eliminating wastage and socialistic bureaucracy. AKA government jobs, which is apparently something republicans hate.

End result we pay less tax there but get much much much better roads, infrastructure, parks, recreational areas for the kids, schools, hospitals, cheaper health care, cities look awesome, neighborhoods look great and so on.

Then move back downunder if that is what you want. We do it differently here. Federal governments never last. Name me one that has.

[scandal 951]

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

Gary, I'd really like you to go live in an America with 50 separate and distinct state Aviation Authorities, rather than the FAA.

And 50 separate Food and Drug regulatory bodies, and no FDA.

Etc. etc. etc.

Go live in that America. I'll gladly live in ours.

I'm quite happy having an FDA, FAA, SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, EPA, OSHA, etc. Yeah there's a lot of bureaucracy. It's inevitable in a complex modern society that's filled with airplanes, pharmaceuticals, electronic trading, and multinational conglomerates. Duplicating these functions 50 times over would only introduce unnecessary waste and frictional losses. Not to mention a lack of standardization. As it is, it's a pain in the butt trying to harmonize state regulations in real estate, taxation and other areas.

Notwithstanding all of this: whether you think federal regulation is a good or a bad thing, it is unquestionably a legal thing. No serious federal judge, US Attorney, or legislator - whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative - thinks otherwise. Only the Ron Paul fringe comes up with these quirky arguments that have no legal basis.

As I pointed out to Steven those are not social programs. They are programs that do and should fall under the federal government as spelled out in the constitution. I refer to the amendments governing inter-state commerce.

Gary, the original question (bold and big above) from Steve referred to "public programs", not "social programs".

You answered that you thought All "public programs" should be devolved to the various states.

Ok, perhaps that's not what you meant. Would you like to list specifically which "social programs" you mean? May I presume (since we've argued this before) that you refer to entitlement spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare? Anything else? SCHIP? Medicaid? Others?

These are all either federal programs or jointly run by the federal government and the states. Make a list.

It appears that you are content that all the ones I mentioned above are safely and legally federal powers in your view? FAA, SEC, etc?

You're ok with the the federal government regulating air traffic control through the FAA? Gee, funny but I don't see any mention of aircraft in the Constitution..... where did that power come from? Sure it's not a violation of the Tenth Amendment? (Hint: It's not. No more or less so than SSA).

[Heracles 417]

We're not "playing games" in taking the Constitution seriously as a reference for guiding the national life. This is how things are done here. I suggest you learn a bit about it before merely mocking it.

Why is it so good? because you say so and it was ingrained from birth. How about comparing it amongst other things to other countries around the world?

Actually, the presidential system has failed at least once in every single country that has implemented it. Whereas the parliamentary system is going strong and in a range of countries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[quote

We can go round and round if you like. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to grant all other powers not given to the states. It is pretty clear on that.

Yep...because I'll refer right back to Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....

Gary, do you not see that your position is one of extreme? Clearly, the Constitution lays out what the Federal Government can do while also wishing to limit the power of government. So there's middle ground, but I don't see an acknowledgment of that middle ground by you and many Right Wingers.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How effective would a state based military force be? There is a reason it is federal.

don't tell that to the national guard

I have not seen the numbers since I got out, but most of the Combat Arms personnel for the Army, and most of the pilots for the Air Force were either Army National Guard, or Air National Guard.

[GaryC 7]

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

Gary, I'd really like you to go live in an America with 50 separate and distinct state Aviation Authorities, rather than the FAA.

And 50 separate Food and Drug regulatory bodies, and no FDA.

Etc. etc. etc.

Go live in that America. I'll gladly live in ours.

I'm quite happy having an FDA, FAA, SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, EPA, OSHA, etc. Yeah there's a lot of bureaucracy. It's inevitable in a complex modern society that's filled with airplanes, pharmaceuticals, electronic trading, and multinational conglomerates. Duplicating these functions 50 times over would only introduce unnecessary waste and frictional losses. Not to mention a lack of standardization. As it is, it's a pain in the butt trying to harmonize state regulations in real estate, taxation and other areas.

Notwithstanding all of this: whether you think federal regulation is a good or a bad thing, it is unquestionably a legal thing. No serious federal judge, US Attorney, or legislator - whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative - thinks otherwise. Only the Ron Paul fringe comes up with these quirky arguments that have no legal basis.

As I pointed out to Steven those are not social programs. They are programs that do and should fall under the federal government as spelled out in the constitution. I refer to the amendments governing inter-state commerce.

Gary, the original question (bold and big above) from Steve referred to "public programs", not "social programs".

You answered that you thought All "public programs" should be devolved to the various states.

Ok, perhaps that's not what you meant. Would you like to list specifically which "social programs" you mean? May I presume (since we've argued this before) that you refer to entitlement spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare? Anything else? SCHIP? Medicaid? Others?

These are all either federal programs or jointly run by the federal government and the states. Make a list.

It appears that you are content that all the ones I mentioned above are safely and legally federal powers in your view? FAA, SEC, etc?

You're ok with the the federal government regulating air traffic control through the FAA? Gee, funny but I don't see any mention of aircraft in the Constitution..... where did that power come from? Sure it's not a violation of the Tenth Amendment? (Hint: It's not. No more or less so than SSA).

I am not going to play word games with you either. You know full well what I mean and you will not deflect from the topic. Yes, all entitlement programs should be the states to deal with. All programs that cross state lines should be the federal government. Clear?

[quote

We can go round and round if you like. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to grant all other powers not given to the states. It is pretty clear on that.

Yep...because I'll refer right back to Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....

Gary, do you not see that your position is one of extreme? Clearly, the Constitution lays out what the Federal Government can do while also wishing to limit the power of government. So there's middle ground, but I don't see an acknowledgment of that middle ground by you and many Right Wingers.

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

Edited May 22, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[GaryC 7]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[quote

My position isn't extreme. It is firmly in the middle and grounded in the constitution. Yours is the extreme position because it goes contrary to the original intent of the constitution.

Then show me where you have resolve in accepting the nature of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in terms of the Congress having the authority to legislate some kind of universal healthcare?

It doesn't. Simple as that.

LOL...Gary, you just demonstrated classic symptoms of extremism.

[scandal 951]

Gary, do you not see that your position is one of extreme? Clearly, the Constitution lays out what the Federal Government can do while also wishing to limit the power of government. So there's middle ground, but I don't see an acknowledgment of that middle ground by you and many Right Wingers.

WORD.

I point out that many conservative legal experts would not be in Gary's camp at all. And that includes Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts.

No one would mistake those Justices for anything but conservatives, yet I daresay they all would agree with Steve's statement above verbatim.

With the exception of a very small minority of fringe thinkers (the Ron Paul crowd, and our good friend Gary) no one seriously points to the Tenth Amendment as a rebuke of two centuries of case law of expanding federal power.