board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Happy Secession Day

Post Reply   Page 4 of 4  [ 70 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Author Message
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 1:06 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
:yes:

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 1:08 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Crucifer... the combination of the general welfare power in clause #1 along with the Necessary and Proper clause in #18 does indeed cover lots of ground and allow the Congress and government to do many things. But for CG to allege than such an admission then somehow negates the necessity of all those other powers in the 16 clauses in between is simply silly. The fact is that many powers given to the government are very specific while others are much broader and less defined or clear. Both categories are there in the Constitution and one does not negate the other.

this is from the Wikipedia entry on IMPLIED POWERS
Quote:
"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the constitution, but are implied. These powers fall under the Elastic Clause in Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This document lets the government create “necessary and proper” programs/laws and retain them, such as creating the Air Force. The Air Force is an implied power because the constitution did not give the power of the Air Force to the federal government, because airplanes didn’t even exist.
"Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself.
Part of both the genius and success of the Constitution is that it allows for the evolution of government as the nation changes. This is accomplished through reinterpretation of sections like the General Welfare clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. It was not by accident that such clauses were left open ended. The ability of the Constitution to be amended also allows for change as the nation changes.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 2:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Crucifer wrote:
Now, I think it's completely absurd to legislate today with the politics of 150 years ago. To do so is to suggest that nations are formed and remain the exact same way for all time, until they are invaded or whatever. Completely absurd. People who cling to a constitution with no thoughts that it may, at some point, need changing are fools. I'm not implying for a moment that people should comply with change they disagree with. They should fight it all they can, if they really don't want it, but not letting something change, simply because people died for 'that constitution' is absurd sentimentalism.
Of course it will need changing, which is why there's an amendment process. What I don't like is those who would ignore the constitution rather than take the steps necessary to amend the constitution to allow for powers not given by the constitution. Take for example the difference between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. In the former, while I would have opposed that amendment, the prohibitionists had enough respect for the constitution to go through with the amendment process.

If people want the heavy welfare-warfare-police state, then the thing to do is amend the constitution to make it happen, not try creative reading and say "if you look at it this way, and ignore other parts that clearly say otherwise, then it's covered."

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 3:12 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
from CG
Quote:
What I don't like is those who would ignore the constitution rather than take the steps necessary to amend the constitution to allow for powers not given by the constitution.
It has already been explained that the view of the Constitution as a rigid and unchanging document written on permanent stone tablets like The Ten Commandments is not reality or fact. If it were not for Article I, Section 8, the General Welfare powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, you would have a point. But to take your position is to ignore the existence of those powers and to ignore the Supreme Courts position on them.

In case you missed it... from Wikipedia in the article on IMPLIED POWERS
Quote:
"Implied powers" are powers not given to the government directly through the constitution, but are implied. These powers fall under the Elastic Clause in Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This document lets the government create “necessary and proper” programs/laws and retain them, such as creating the Air Force. The Air Force is an implied power because the constitution did not give the power of the Air Force to the federal government, because airplanes didn’t even exist.
"Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself.
The men who wrote the Constitution provided for this and knew what they were doing. They did not want a extremely limited government which only had a very specific list of enumerated powers. Were that the intent of the Founding Fathers, they never would have included the General Welfare clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. But they did include them. They are part of the Constitution. They are part of the American system of government.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 5:17 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote:
[]But you do not have to listen to me as I only taught this stuff for over thirty years.
Those who can't do, teach.
Specific evidence, please, as it applies to sf. Or was that a general throwaway rebuke with no subsubstantiation?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
ellienor
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 10:17 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
 
Quote:
This is most blatantly obvious in the constitution writers' strong desire for a limited, hands off gov't, something which was explicitly written into the constitution. The constitution explicitly limits our Federal government's power to only a specific a list of powers. If it wasn't on the list, did it was not legally within the Federal government's authority.
The Supreme Court was vested (by the Constitution!) with the power to decide just what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, CG, I'm sorry to say. "When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court."

and...

"The Founding Fathers had wisely worded [the Constitution] in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 10:29 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
ellienor wrote:
Quote:
This is most blatantly obvious in the constitution writers' strong desire for a limited, hands off gov't, something which was explicitly written into the constitution. The constitution explicitly limits our Federal government's power to only a specific a list of powers. If it wasn't on the list, did it was not legally within the Federal government's authority.
The Supreme Court was vested (by the Constitution!) with the power to decide just what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, CG, I'm sorry to say. "When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court."[/quote]

I wrote that, no CG. We kinda look the same from certain angles. ;)
And it's commonly accepted history (at least in every history class/book I ever saw) that the Supreme Court did agree with me.....until the FDR administration changed the face of US politics and vastly expanded to fed's power.
Again, that alcohol prohibition was done by constitutional amendment in the pre-FDR decade is a pretty clear indicator of how things have changed.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Wed 08 Jul , 2009 10:58 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
The powers of the Judicial Branch of the US Government are the most vague and less enumerated of either of the three branches.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In fact, Article III is the shortest and briefest of the three main articles that establish the federal government. The remainder of Article III deals with the subject of jurisdiction (Section 2) and then defines the crime of treason (Section 3) .


In 1803, the Court handed down its famous Marbury v. Madison ruling and established for itself the very important power off Judicial Review. Here is a small part of the wikipedia entry on that power:
Quote:
Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the constitution itself.
At the federal level, there is no power of judicial review explicitly established in the United States Constitution, but the doctrine has been inferred from the structure of that document.[1] At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, five of the thirteen States included some form of judicial review or judicial veto in their state Constitutions. Delegates at 1787's Constitutional Convention, including South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, spoke out against the doctrine of judicial review.

Since the 1803 legal case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has understood that it has a power of judicial review, in order to apply the Constitution to particular cases.[2] This does not mean, however, that the judiciary is the only branch of government that decides the meaning of the text of the Constitution. Article VI requires all public officials in the other branches of government to be bound "by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution," and the officials of the other branches of government have almost always respected the Court's interpretations, even when disagreeing with them, on the premise that the Court's interpretations of the Constitution have been in good faith.
It was understood that Article III was intentionally short and vague and these powers would evolve and take specific form and shape for over time as the courts, the nation and government evolved.

from Yovargas
Quote:
And it's commonly accepted history (at least in every history class/book I ever saw) that the Supreme Court did agree with me.....until the FDR administration changed the face of US politics and vastly expanded to fed's power.
Again, that alcohol prohibition was done by constitutional amendment in the pre-FDR decade is a pretty clear indicator of how things have changed.
The Supreme Court started proclaiming judicial review powers and defining them for itself in 1803. That predates the administration of Franklin Roosevelt by 130 years. Neither the Legislative branch - Congress, nor the Executive branch - the President, attempted to deny the Judicial branch the powers it adopted for itself. In fact, when Justice John Marshall proclaimed the power of judicial review it was not a brash departure but rather a crystallization of a nascent tradition.

This is a excellent example against the very idea that the Constitution is very specific as to power and strictly limits the various branches to specific and limited actions and powers.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Mon 31 Aug , 2009 1:50 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
In case you missed it

http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1369

200 Texas secessionists gathered at the State capital Building in Austin on Sunday, August 30th to advocate possible secession from the USA. Who are these folks?
Quote:
Instead of Perry or Creighton, the protesters had Larry Kilgore, a “Christian activist” and candidate for governor who has endorsed executions for homosexuals; Debra Medina, a Ron Paul Republican and a slightly-less long-shot candidate for governor; and Melissa Pehle-Hill, yet another fringe candidate and a member of a self-appointed “citizens grand jury” investigating Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro.

The audience of about 200 people included tattoed bikers wearing Confederate memorabilia, Alex Jones conspiracy theorists carrying those Obama-as-Joker signs, lots of older guys in Texas flag shirts and blue jeans, Ron Paul activists, and others.



Kilgore, dressed in starched blue jeans and a cowboy hat, drew some murmurs of disapproval when he launched into a rant against the U.S.

“I hate that flag up there,” Kilgore said pointing to the American flag flying over the Capitol. “I hate the United States government. … They’re an evil, corrupt government. They need to go. Sovereignty is not good enough. Secession is what we need!”

“We hate the United States!,” he said later in the speech. (And they say leftists are America-bashers!)

Medina chipped in: “We are aware that stepping off into secession may in fact be a bloody war. We are aware that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

For his part, Kilgore assured the crowd that violence wouldn’t be necessary to secede. Instead, the U.S. would just split up like the USSR did in 1991.
That last line reminds me of a online essay I once read by some right winger who acted like he was teaching a class about the beautiful events that led to modern secession. It was like the writer was describing his own disturbing wet dream. He too seemed to feel all you had to do was say "we quit" and the government of the USA was going to say "okay - nice knowing you".

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Happy Secession Day
Posted: Sun 04 Jul , 2010 11:45 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Abraham Lincoln wrote:
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.
Happy Secession and Rebellion Day. That is, after all, what the founding fathers did.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 4  [ 70 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4
Jump to: