Page 83 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3373787980818283848586878893133 ... LastLast
Results 1,641 to 1,660 of 2855
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1641  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I can't explain it.....go to here:

    Historic Documents - The Constitution of the United States of America

    Then scroll down to Article 8, the 7th item listed is:

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads

    Maybe "Post Offices" back then are different from what know as post offices? Otherwise, I think your link is wrong. LOL We need Bujin to clarify this for us.
    Clem, we're both talking about the same Article I, section 8. Read the last line, under the part about post offices. It basically supports all thats said above it. Its like, we can do all this stuff in this section because.... viola'... I give you the 'elastic clause'. Don't know if I can make it more clear. But I'll try if you need me to.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #1642  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Yes, because you're relying on the Internets to define the Elastic Clause for you. Are me and clemgrad85 the only ones who have read the Constitution here? It's not that hard a read. Get a copy and read it. For more information, get a copy of the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #1643  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Clem, we're both talking about the same Article I, section 8. Read the last line, under the part about post offices. It basically supports all thats said above it. Its like, we can do all this stuff in this section because.... viola'... I give you the 'elastic clause'. Don't know if I can make it more clear. But I'll try if you need me to.
    I don't know what you think he isn't understanding. The Elastic Clause gives Congress the implied power to implement their enumerated powers. If it's not an enumerated power, the elastic clause does not give them that power. That's why there was not a general income tax other than in times of war (enumerated power of defense) until the 16th amendment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1644  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yes, because you're relying on the Internets to define the Elastic Clause for you. Are me and clemgrad85 the only ones who have read the Constitution here? It's not that hard a read. Get a copy and read it. For more information, get a copy of the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers.
    I am looking at the document, Toby. I'm not a lawyer. You tell me. Is Article 1, section 8, last line, *not* the rubber band that keeps getting stretched?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #1645  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'd like to ask your opinion based on what you've said here. Where is the line drawn with "implied powers." Can't you justify almost anything with this line of reasoning? Doesn't that essentially say that we do not have a limited government (which was very clearly the intent and goal of the Constitution).
    Hi,

    A few people have responded to my post, so sorry for not responding to each of you:

    I didn't espouse any particular line of reasoning, or opinion as to what the appropriate line was between states' rights and federal authority. My only point was that the law doesn't look at it as a cut & dry as "if it's not expressly stated in the Constitution, it's not the realm of the federal government". That's not a statement of opinion, but rather of interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court has always established parameters for implied powers: prior to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal, the law permitted our society to have separate facilities for black and white students. Before the Court rule in Loving v. Virginia, a state could prohibit persons from marrying based on race. Before the court ruled in Roe v. Wade, women had no constitutional implied right to privacy.

    So folks can argue about whether they agree with where the Supreme Court draws the line, but it simply isn't accurate to say things like "federal involvement in education is unconstitutional" because the Supreme Court, which decides such things, doesn't agree.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/25/2009 at 12:40 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1646  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't know what you think he isn't understanding. The Elastic Clause gives Congress the implied power to implement their enumerated powers. If it's not an enumerated power, the elastic clause does not give them that power. That's why there was not a general income tax other than in times of war (enumerated power of defense) until the 16th amendment.
    He came after me, Toby, not the other way around. I'll just let you smarter guys hash it out.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #1647  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I am looking at the document, Toby. I'm not a lawyer. You tell me. Is Article 1, section 8, last line, *not* the rubber band that keeps getting stretched?
    I'm not a lawyer either (although I was interested in becoming one long ago). Yes, the last line in Article I, Section 8 is the Elastic Clause. Again, it gives Congress the implied power to implement the enumerated powers of itself and the federal government as a whole (since Congress controls the purse strings). That's it. The article you posted is slightly incorrect. Congress was explicitly given the power to create the postal system, so it doesn't fall under implied powers.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #1648  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He came after me, Toby, not the other way around. I'll just let you smarter guys hash it out.
    He didn't come after you. He pointed out that the Postal Service is not an implied power. It's an explicit one. Deep breaths...
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #1649  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    A few people have responded to my post, so sorry for not responding to each of you:
    Nice dodge.
    The Supreme Court has always established parameters for implied powers: prior to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal, the law permitted our society to have separate facilities for black and white students.
    This has nothing to do with the Elastic Clause. It's a 14th amendment case.
    Before the Court rule in Loving v. Virginia, a state could prohibit persons from marrying based on race.
    Yet again, another 14th amendment case.
    Before the court ruled in Roe v. Wade, women had no constitutional implied right to privacy.
    You're mixing contexts. Implied powers specifically refers to Congress.
    So folks can argue about whether they agree with where the Supreme Court draws the line, but it simply isn't accurate to say things like "federal involvement in education is unconstitutional" because the Supreme Court, which decides such things, doesn't agree.
    I'm still waiting on a citation where that is proven. I suppose you could stretch it and say that X is constitutional until it has been tested legally, but that position is similar to stealing someone's pencil and being called a thief only to respond with "I have not been convicted of theft, so I'm not a thief."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1650  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Hi,

    A few people have responded to my post, so sorry for not responding to each of you:

    I didn't espouse any particular line of reasoning, or opinion as to what the appropriate line was between states' rights and federal authority. My only point was that the law doesn't look at it as a cut & dry as "if it's not expressly stated in the Constitution, it's not the realm of the federal government". That's not a statement of opinion, but rather of interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court has always established parameters for implied powers: prior to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate was not equal, the law permitted our society to have separate facilities for black and white students. Before the Court rule in Loving v. Virginia, a state could prohibit persons from marrying based on race. Before the court ruled in Roe v. Wade, women had no constitutional implied right to privacy.

    So folks can argue about whether they agree with where the Supreme Court draws the line, but it simply isn't accurate to say things like "federal involvement in education is unconstitutional" because the Supreme Court, which decides such things, doesn't agree.
    Well, I was asking your opinion, on where that line is drawn--in your view.

    The examples you state however, are really not quite the same as government programs. In each case you mentioned, they are about whether a government was wrongfully infringing on the rights of its citizens.

    Of course you are speaking from a standpoint that the Supreme Court is proper in its role, which is another discussion. The intention of the Framers was not to have the Supreme Court have overriding power superior to that of the other branches of government, but some might argue that is in fact what has happened. Not meaning to tangent off.

    The point is that if the line is not defined, then is there really an effective line at all? If fairly strong statements such as the 10th Amendment are not defining a line, then what can?

    If a determination cannot be made--isn't cut and dried, then how is this different from not having any restriction? Not having a restriction means we have essentially a government with unlimited power, and not specific enumerated powers, which was clearly the intent. Do you see what I'm saying? Not saying you are advocating this.

    Toby: I've got a paper copy of the Constitution in my briefcase, and a hard-cover one at home. Its been a while since I sat and read straight through, but I sometimes look at various sections. But why bother with that? No one cares what it says anyway.

    KAM
  11. #1651  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    He came after me, Toby, not the other way around. I'll just let you smarter guys hash it out.
    Easssssyyyyy big fella....I did not come after you LOL Toby said it correctly just below. Under Article 1, Section 8, it lists: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" So, this is something the Constitution gives the Congress the right to do....nothing implied....it can do this. No if's, and's, or but's......the Congress has the power to establish a Post Office.

    Now, the part in question, that gives the "implied" or "elastic" powers is the last part of Section 8: "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."

    That meant that anything specifically mentioned previously (establishment of the Post Office, to borrow money on the credit of the US, to coin money, establish a Navy, etc), the Congress has the power to make laws which would allow such things to be carried out. So, the Constitution doesn't say they can buy vehicles to deliver mail, but, vehicles allow for carrying out the execution of the mail.

    The part that I then like to throw out there for debate, is Amendment X to the Constitution which says: "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." So, if health care isn't specifically mentioned, it is my opinion (and this differs with Bujin's opinion of the interpretation, I think) that this Amendment says the States can take on this issue. The founders didn't want to be this all controlling entity....they wanted the states involved and here is where it gives this explicit power to them on anything not covered.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1652  
    Its half a dozen of one or 6 of another, Clem. You're saying they're distinct items. I'm saying that one supports the other. If the sentences were in two different art/sec's, your point would be solid. All I'm saying is that the 'elastic clause' "seems to me" to be their excuse for all the other stuff they lay claim to in the same section. Now, I'm going into a corner and holding my breath until I turn blue, thank you.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #1653  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....I busted on the doc initially for this, but I think he does suffer a little from the "god syndrome". At first I thought it was just because he was a doctor, but then found out he also graduated from Chapel Hill and that was all I needed to know. Being from the south myself, we just know what to expect from UNC grads. If a guy is acting like he knows it all, we just say.."I think he's a Tarheel", and everyone just laughs and says "ooohhhh....nuf said". He really can't help it.

    Just playing with ya doc.....though....kind of true to.
    You must have me confused with someone from Dook. And I didn't graduate from UNC, I taught there. But as my wife is a died in the wool serious Tarheel, from Shelby, becoming a Gator was not an option.
  14. #1654  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You must have me confused with someone from Dook. And I didn't graduate from UNC, I taught there. But as my wife is a died in the wool serious Tarheel, from Shelby, becoming a Gator was not an option.


    I still haven't forgotten Dook screwing my Tigers for a timing issue on their home court a couple of years ago. Check this out....sorry for a change in discussion here....but doc, you tell me how this should have happened:

    Last edited by clemgrad85; 08/25/2009 at 02:18 PM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1655  
    I remember it well. It happened because Dook gets the home calls everytime they play. I've seen a million of 'em.
  16. AKraemer's Avatar
    Posts
    35 Posts
    Global Posts
    36 Global Posts
    #1656  
    I just joined a Facebook group that had the guts to take a stand against exactly the kind of government interference you're talking about:

    For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been socialist organizations, resulting in taxes on the American people.

    FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. The Obama administration has been very clear about keeping the status quo when it comes to taxpayer-funded fire departments.

    It is time to open the fire department up to private industry. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.

    This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

    "Better DEAD than fire truck RED."
    -member D.J. Hostettler

    Please tell everyone you know about this group!
  17. #1657  
    Quote Originally Posted by AKraemer View Post
    I just joined a Facebook group that had the guts to take a stand against exactly the kind of government interference you're talking about: [...]
    This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

    "Better DEAD than fire truck RED."
    -member D.J. Hostettler

    Please tell everyone you know about this group![/I]
    The federal government doesn't pay for my fire protection, nor is it free (or even ever claimed to be). This fire and police argument is stupid in this context.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1658  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The federal government doesn't pay for my fire protection, nor is it free (or even ever claimed to be). This fire and police argument is stupid in this context.
    Yes, that is a very flawed analogy--even for the purpose of satire.

    People really have no comprehension of our system of government, how it works, how or why it was established, etc.

    I'd not be surprised if the United States didn't make it to its Tricentennial.

    Additionally, if a town wants to hire a doctor, and the people of that town vote for it--who am I to argue with them making decisions for themselves. That's democracy...and like Northern Exposure (sort of).

    Or course, this would require an understanding that there are differences in Federal, State and Local governments and what they are empowered by the citizens to do. Let's not worry about those pesky facts.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 08/25/2009 at 03:00 PM. Reason: Additional point
  19. #1659  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    People really have no comprehension of our system of government, how it works, how or why it was established, etc.

    I'd not be surprised if the United States didn't make it to its Tricentennial.

    KAM
    I sure am glad you pointed out how arrogant I am. Just makes me appreciate your pomposity even more.
  20. AKraemer's Avatar
    Posts
    35 Posts
    Global Posts
    36 Global Posts
    #1660  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'd not be surprised if the United States didn't make it to its Tricentennial.
    To be fair, it almost didn't make it to its Centennial by about a hundred minus four-score and seven.

Posting Permissions