What? No government shutdown threads?

[Gunslinger08]

I'm sorry, but the purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the federal government. There's simply no arguing that.

Depends on what you compare the US Constitution to. If you compare it to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution absolutely strengthened the federal government. If you compare it to the British government, it was a very strong limitation on the federal government compared to the monarch and Parliament of Britain. From what I've learned, I don't believe the AoC would have sufficiently held the states together and we would have several different countries occupying the modern day United States.

It's my belief that, in general, the founders would not be particularly thrilled with the sprawl of our government at federal, state, or local level. Consider that the Bill of Rights was controversial in the 18th century, because even the federalists who were in support of a very strong federal government thought it was unnecessary to enumerate individual rights, as the Constitution didn't explicitly grant the federal government power to encroach on those rights. Do you see how our interpretations have changed? The Constitution was meant, by at least a majority of the founders, to be an enumerated list of the powers of the federal government - and anything not enumerated was reserved for the states and/or individuals. Modern interpretation has stretched these enumerated powers considerably and the Bill of Rights has obviously been a necessary check against this stretch for more power.

 

[Texashiker]

While there are certainly parts of the Constitution that limit what the federal government can do it was made with the express purpose of increasing centralized authority.

That is simply not true

James Madison -

With a strict republic based on rule by law and limits on the federal governments, individuals would be able to enjoy a high level of freedom on a state and local level.

You have nothing to backup your statement that the founding fathers wanted a strong central government.

 

[fskimospy]

but placing strict controls on it, as the colonists had lived under an all-powerful tyrannical government before . . . if were meant to strengthen the power of the government, then why not leave it with a monarchy?

Sure there were controls placed on it. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution came into being due to the weakness of their current centralized authority. They saw it wasn't enough and they specifically created the Constitution to give more power to the federal government. More power does not equal limitless power.

Still, to say that the Constitution was created to restrain the government certainly implies that its purpose was to reduce government power when in fact it was meant to expand it.

 

[Texashiker]

Still, to say that the Constitution was created to restrain the government certainly implies that its purpose was to reduce government power when in fact it was meant to expand it.

Prove your statement.

The founding fathers knew that power corrupts. They in turn attempted to limit the power of the federal government to curb the corruption.

Thomas Jefferson - "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Matt1970 View Post
So once a law is passed it can never be changed in any way?

Sure if you HAVE the votes to do it legitimately.

Holding the budget/country/economy hostage and playing chicken/suicide because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES to make the changes is beyond idiotic.

Like our immigration laws?

You know, the whole 'Dream Act' like Obama did unilaterally and which was NEVER F'ing even voted on.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Remember when Republicans said that 'uncertainty' over what the government was doing was the biggest impediment holding the economy back? Yeah, me too.
-snip-

Yep.

A year of delay for Obamacare just means another year of nobody knowing how it actually works and that means another year of uncertainty.

Fern

 

[Lithium381]

Sure there were controls placed on it. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution came into being due to the weakness of their current centralized authority. They saw it wasn't enough and they specifically created the Constitution to give more power to the federal government. More power does not equal limitless power.

Still, to say that the Constitution was created to restrain the government certainly implies that its purpose was to reduce government power when in fact it was meant to expand it.

made to reduce it from the POV of their previous British government, but to expand it from the POV of the Articles of Confederation . . .

 

[Fern]

I read this somewhere else (sadly I can't remember where at the moment), but I thought it was an illustrative example. Imagine if this were the Iraq War in 2007. There was a debt ceiling vote in September. The Iraq War was noticeably less popular than the ACA with the American public, it was adding to the deficit hugely as opposed to reducing it, it was killing Americans (and Iraqis) as opposed to giving them health care, and the Democrats had just won resounding victories in the most recent election, based in no small part on their opposition to the war in Iraq.

Still, Democrats even CRITICIZING the war was frequently portrayed as 'emboldening the enemy', borderline treason, etc. Did they ever try to use the federal budget or the debt ceiling to defund the war? Nope. If they had done that, just how epic would the right's freakout have been?

Governing like that is incredibly irresponsible, no matter the topic or time. At least if the Democrats tried to do it they could point to the results of a recent election, but the Republicans just lost seats across the board, along with the presidency.

No one is fooled, guys. This is so utterly transparent.

That is a flat-out stupid analogy.

The Dems didn't do that out of fear of political repercussions.

Hell, they ran on getting out of the war. Then, as usual, didn't follow up with their campaign BS.

Fern

 

[First]

That is a flat-out stupid analogy.

The Dems didn't do that out of fear of political repercussions.

Hell, they ran on getting out of the war. Then, as usual, didn't follow up with their campaign BS.

Fern

Yikes, your posts seemingly get more thin and devoid of sense by the hour.

 

[fskimospy]

That is simply not true

James Madison -

You have nothing to backup your statement that the founding fathers wanted a strong central government.

James Madison believed in a strong federal government so strongly that during the drafting of the Constitution he wanted to strip the states of their sovereignty in its entirety, saying that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Additionally, he wanted to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s6.html

He became more moderate later in life, but remember we're just supposed to look at the Constitution as it was drafted, right?

 

[Texashiker]

James Madison believed in a strong federal government so strongly that during the drafting of the Constitution he wanted to strip the states of their sovereignty in its entirety, saying that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty.

He became more moderate later in life, but remember we're just supposed to look at the Constitution as it was drafted, right?

It is pretty clear he changed his mind somewhere along the line,

James Madison - “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Anyone else you would like to quote?

 

[fskimospy]

That is a flat-out stupid analogy.

The Dems didn't do that out of fear of political repercussions.

Hell, they ran on getting out of the war. Then, as usual, didn't follow up with their campaign BS.

Fern

That is a flat-out stupid response. You either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Come on man, you can do better than this.

The motivations for whether or not Democrats did it were not germane to my point, which was how conservatives would have responded in that case. Considering how angry conservatives got about Democrats even saying mean things about the war, shutting down the government or risking a debt ceiling breach over defunding it would have given you guys an aneurysm.

You just don't want to confront that particular inconsistency because it would show all this posturing to be partisan bullshit coming from a base that's lost all touch with reality.

 

[Jhhnn]

THIS is what is wrong with America. Gov't lovers like eski and other liberals don't really care about the Founding Fathers thought process and ideas when it comes to the Constitution. I chalk it up to poor parenting and education that we have people like them walking around. My two oldest have had enough history in school to know the basics and I quiz them on it to make sure they really understand. My kids won't grow up to ignore the Constitution and it's intentions...

Nice appeal to authority. Suitably vague, as well.

The founders may have lived on the same planet, but their world was entirely different than our own. The simple fact that the Constitution has been amended many times tells us that.

The original document allowed for slavery, something that the usual nostalgists try to gloss over. It allowed for discrimination against women. The notion that a citizen militia could adequately defend the nation was found wanting, but the provisions about firearms aimed at maintaining a militia remain. So forth & so on.

Oh, and the ACA has been ruled Constitutional by what really is a court stacked with conservatives, so maybe you need to spout that bullshit elsewhere.

 

[fskimospy]

It is pretty clear he changed his mind somewhere along the line,

James Madison - “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Anyone else you would like to quote?

Wait, I thought we were supposed to use the intent of the constitution as written? It's so clear that you are completely clueless as to our history. What's worse is that you won't accept evidence to the contrary and when given it you lie about it later.

 

[DrPizza]

Some of you need to dial back the personal insults a bit. A few of these are a bit over the top, even by P&N standards.

Thank you
-Admin DrPizza

 

[dbk]

Why no up-and-down vote on a clean CR? Last time I checked, the GOP holds the majority in the House.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep.

A year of delay for Obamacare just means another year of nobody knowing how it actually works and that means another year of uncertainty.

Fern

Not to mention that a government shutdown and a possible debt ceiling breach are basically the dictionary definition of policy uncertainty. These clowns can't even keep their own BS straight.

 

[fskimospy]

Why no up-and-down vote on a clean CR? Last time I checked, the GOP holds the majority in the House.

They won't hold a vote on a clean CR because House Republicans are afraid it will pass. They can't allow the legislation to be voted on or they lose.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/democrats-go-nuclear-on-john-boehner/280156/

It looks like that despite Boehner attempting to force congressional staff to lose their health care in the House's most recent bill he had been lobbying in secret for them to keep it for months.

So sad. It seems like Boehner might, if left to his own devices, act in a reasonably sane manner. Looks like he has been completely subsumed by the crazies.

 

[Texashiker]

Wait, I thought we were supposed to use the intent of the constitution as written?

You have provided no links or quotes to backup your statements. And when you are backed into a corner to start throwing insults around?

Here are the facts, after coming from a monarchy the founding fathers wanted a weak central government, and a strong local government.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Thomas Jefferson

In that last quote, Jefferson makes it very clear that the Constitution is supposed to act as a form of chain as to limit the federal government.

 

[fskimospy]

You have provided no links or quotes to backup your statements. And when you are backed into a corner to start throwing insults around?

Here are the facts, after coming from a monarchy the founding fathers wanted a weak central government, and a strong local government.

You're lying again, I've provided both. Are you having difficulty operating your internet browser? That can be the only explanation as to your inability to read these links.

 

[Texashiker]

You're lying again, I've provided both. Are you having difficulty operating your internet browser? That can be the only explanation as to your inability to read these links.

You provided one link that was quickly disputed.

I am providing several quotes and links to sources to your one. Well, since it was disputed your one does not count.

James Madison again - The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects.

James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Jefferson used the word chained and Madison used the word confined.

But somehow you would have us believe the founding fathers wanted a strong central government? How is something supposed to expand when it is chained and confined? It's not.

 

[Lithium381]

You're lying again, I've provided both. Are you having difficulty operating your internet browser? That can be the only explanation as to your inability to read these links.

TH's links seem more substantial than yours and are reflected more accurately in how the constitution was eventually penned...

 

[fskimospy]

You provided one link that was quickly disputed.

I am providing several quotes and links to sources to your one. Well, since it was disputed your one does not count.

James Madison again - The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects.

James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Jefferson used the word chained and Madison used the word confined.

But somehow you would have us believe the founding fathers wanted a strong central government?

lol. Go crack open a history book, guy. Saying something is confined to specific objects itself says nothing about its strength. There, I've disputed your quotes. None of them count.

This is getting far too stupid for even me to indulge in. Yes, the writers of the Constitution wanted a strong central government. There were certain factions such as the Jeffersonian faction (and Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, btw) who wanted a much weaker one.

They lost.

 

[boomerang]

Honest framing of issues? Like airing ads showing Republicans pushing Grandma over a cliff? Is that what you mean? That ad set the bar for Democrats and illustrated just how low they're willing to go when it comes to such matters as honest framing of the issues. Get real.

I think Obama lowered that bar quite a bit today in his speech. It is somewhat advantageous having a pathological liar as President. There is never a doubt that everything he says is a lie.