"punishing the rich"

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 22:51:09

So you're arguing, then, that the first few sessions of Congress (And, indeed, every session of Congress ever since) has been misinterpreting the US Constitution and passing unconstitutional legislation?

glennmagusharvey · 2011-05-21 22:53:24

> actually you are making the mistake of using a Living Text understanding
of regulate at the time of ratificaiton of the commerce clause regulate
meant "to make regular" as in you couldn't ban interstate commerce or
have separate state currencies.

How does "making regular" simply mean banning interstate commerce or having separate state currencies?

When you said "make regular" I was wondering, why do you mean the federal government can cause every state to have exactly the same GDP? Because that is nonsense, but that is what your "make regular" means.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-21 22:54:05

generally yes i'm speaking mostly of the Hamiltionian faction though as apart from a few things (Louisiana Purchase) the Jeffersonians seem pretty good about upholding the Constitution. But make no mistake. politicians have been lying and ab using this country since before it was a country.

No no no it does not mean banning itnerstate commerce like the several states are doing. it means making sure things like currency and commerce are regular. as in the states are prohibited from banning interstate commerce. if memory serves this was due to an issue along the great lakes and Commerce with New York.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-05-21 22:57:41

But you just went into original intent.

If we only consider literal reading, as you say, we cannot consider that. We can ONLY consider that it says "regulate interstate commerce".

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 22:57:53

Don't you realise that disagreeing about the meaning of the Constitution with almost everybody involved in writing it might appear to be more than a little bit deranged? Besides, how do you justify slavish adherence to the text of a document when you quite clearly disagree with the actions of most people who wrote it and their reading of it?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-21 22:59:36

how am i disagreeing with the founders again? I don't like the state anyway why can't people see it's just one big centralized corporation?

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 23:07:01

I assume that, like any strict constructionist, you don't think Congress has any power not explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The US government was doing things like that pretty much from day one. Just to list off some things the first congress did: Copyright legislation, patent legislation, (How do those 'regulate interstate commerce,' again?), establishing a national bank, consolidating the national debt, assuming more debt, creating departments under the Executive branch, regulating commerce between Indian tribes and non-indians, defining how national citizenship may be granted...

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-21 23:14:04

Actually I thinkthat falls under Article I Section 8 but correct me if I misunderstand the Lexicon of the time.

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

I'm against the National banks myself and think they were a big fuck up. as for the Indian Tribes it depends on your use of the word Regulate. depending on what you mean it may fall under Article I Section 8 Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 23:17:06

Well, that covers patents and copyright, but what about the national bank, public debt, regulation of Indian commerce and national citizenship? Or those two fun tidbits from the following three sessions of Congress, the establishment of the postal service and the navy? Or, indeed, the entire construction of Washington, DC, a move in which the federal government 1. alienated territory from States, and 2. Used federal money to build an entire god damn city.

EDIT: Well, if you're against the national bank, if you think it's unconstitutional, congratulations! You disagree with the framers of the constitution, on constitutional issues.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-21 23:25:59

correction. I disagree with a single faction of the framers the Hamiltonians there is no mention of a National Bank in the constitution. Washington D.C. I'm skeptical about and as far as navy and postal services they are covered in Article I Section 8.

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

and like I said. With the Indian tribes it depends on what you mean By regulate. It may be coverd in Article I Section 8 Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes; but again it depends on what you mean by Regulate.

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 23:29:50

Well, again, how do you justify slavish adherence to the text? Also, under that interpretation, isn't the entire US government completely illegitimate by now, being as virtually every congress has been passing legislation you believe to be unconstitutional?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-21 23:32:14

Exactly!

BonSequitur · 2011-05-21 23:36:50

That still leaves the why the Constitution should be taken as a yardstick of legitimacy in the first place.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:08:39

uah yes. here it is. an old lecture I quite liked on the subject the federal government is actually specifically prohibited form exercising any powers not specifically granted to or or powers specifically prohibited to it. the state governments are also restricted form exercising powers specifically prohibited to them.

This lecture series is really quite good.

BonSequitur · 2011-05-22 00:14:58

I'm not asking you about what the constitution means, I'm asking you to give reasons to adhere to it.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:20:45

because if the state doesn't adhere to it they can pretty much do what they wish. if you accept some unconstitutional legislation that you happen to li9ke you open the door for other unconstitutional legislation that you don't like. Besides without the Constitution how do we keep the state in check and how do we protect our liberty?

BonSequitur · 2011-05-22 00:25:59

Well, there are states without constitutions such as the UK which rely on tradition and and political discourse to restrain government, and of course there are a great many other constitutional states with different constitutions. Your construction of the US constitution is as far from the principles that guide the current US constitution as, say, the constitution of Zimbabwe; the question is, why take the US constitution as a model, and not the constitution of Zimbabwe or a set of abstract political principles?

An argument for constitutional government isn't an argument for the US constitution, strictly construed, specifically, especially as Congress' powers in the US currently are limited; 'living text' understandings of the constitution are based on jurisprudence, which doesn't give Congress the power to interpret the constitution but rather the Supreme Court, under the guidance of judicial consensus (E.g., someone who believes in a 'living' interpretation of the US Constitution can believe an act of Congress to be unconstitutional and disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, on the grounds of jurisprudence or reason on either case).

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:31:23

and these government have no solid restrictions under any given doctrine so they can just make shit up. now admittedly the US has the same problem only because we arn't paying attention. we get all excited that the government either gives us free stuff (that is not how markets work!) or protects us from some sort of arcane threat like the "evils" of homosexuality or offensive or blasphemous speech. To that I say no. if J.M. Kynes knew anything we wouldn't be in this mess today.

BonSequitur · 2011-05-22 00:34:10

You're dodging the question to go on unrelated rants.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:35:36

Sorry which question again? it's late and i'm a little out of it.

BonSequitur · 2011-05-22 00:36:35

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:38:02

give me a break ok! so i'm a little lost is that such a horribkle thing? Oh sorry I think I know what quesiton you mean. Like I said i'm kind of out of it. anyway I use the U.S. Constitution because it's relevent to me i'm for protecting liberty and small government principles all over the world though. the thing is forcing people in to a state economy or single economic system is just as bad to me as forcing them to a set of social norms or moral standards. If you want to get a collective orginized and practice socialism via pooling your resources and such go ahead and do it. if you wna tto practice capitalism do it. If you want to orginize in to voluntary unions and negotiate with other businesses go do it. the key problem is when the state gets involved. it creates corporatist systems. Like I said the state is just one big corperation.

Vorpy · 2011-05-22 00:43:27

That's a new facepalm image.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 00:44:18

yeah I noticed that. the lighting is horrible.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-05-22 10:36:31

...I guess I'm too late to have my end of the conversation restarted.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

"punishing the rich"

Comments