I'm saying that I don't agree with your interpretation of what he was doing.
I'm starting to think you argue just to argue.
I'm sitting here saying he should be put out of office. I never dreamed you'd disagree with me on it. Didn't know you were such a Boehner fan.
Good post, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Anti-Federalists wanted a less-powerful Federal government. Virtually everyone at the time agreed that the Articles of Confederation were simply unworkable; a central government that weak cannot form a successful modern (for the time) republic, and a confederacy by its nature cannot provide a strong unified defense or even a single coherent response to most situations. I think it's more accurate to say that the Federalists wanted an expanded federal government with powers roughly equivalent to those of European nations, whereas the Anti-Federalists wanted a more powerful government than currently existing while also fearing what that government might do. Thus the Federalists preached the need for a stronger federal government while the Anti-Federalists preached the need for that stronger federal government's powers to be strictly limited. In the end, they reached a pretty darned good compromise.TH's links reflect the anti-federalists thoughts at the time, a group who wanted limited Federal government. He's forgetting to quote the Federalist's, who wanted a stronger federalist government. They wrote something called the Federalist papers, which most teenagers are required to read in High school. Which goes to show why looking at the "Founding Father's Original Intent" is so stupid. You can find people on both sides of the aisle on any major issue. In the end the Constitution was a compromise between both thoughts.
Also, a quick look at TH's quotes shows him taking specific quotes out of context.
The fact that you can show that Federalists wanted an expanded federal government while Anti-Federalists wanted a less-powerful Federal government shows that the founding fathers were divided on the issue, and "Original Intent" of any specific law depends on picking someone who's "original intent" most closely mirrors your own. The truth is that the Articles of Confederation provided a weak federal government and were a failure, so the constitution was designed to have a stronger federal government then the Articles of Confederation. How much stronger, and just how powerful a federal government is an argument that we continue to have 200+ years later.
Jefferson yet again - "The purpose of a written constitution is to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws,"
Uh yea, increase federal powers all you want, just as long as it does not get past its bindings and chains.
Allow Madison to explain for you,
The government cannot extend its jurisdiction.
But for some reason you claim the founding fathers wanted to greatly increase the governments power?
You have utterly failed to read my link then.
a central government that weak cannot form a successful modern (for the time) republic, and a confederacy by its nature cannot provide a strong unified defense or even a single coherent response to most situations.
I'm saying that I don't agree with your interpretation of what he was doing.
If it was on the up and up why the need to do it in secret?
You are simultaneously arguing that strong government does not equal unlimited government but that sovereignty is an indivisible quality. Belly dancers wish they had your flexibility. Remember that sovereignty is never total; not only must the federal government yield to other nations in some matters, but there are still areas (admittedly very few with proggies ascendant) where the federal government must yield sovereignty to the states. Until Obamacare, health insurance was one such.You have utterly failed to read my link then. I will grant that you may not have understood some of the language as well, but that's on you to get better with before you start attacking someone else or calling them dishonest.
State sovereignty (ironically the same bit you quoted)
He is saying that sovereign states are incompatible with a sovereign unified nation. Not sure how much clearer he can be.
Federal veto:
A "negative" in legal terms is the equivalent of a presidential veto.
EDIT: I guess you're just countering what I presume you thought was my 'blatant dishonesty' with your 'blatant inability to understand what you're reading'.
If it was on the up and up why the need to do it in secret?
Ya think?!?!?!?!?!I'm starting to think you argue just to argue.
You are simultaneously arguing that strong government does not equal unlimited government but that sovereignty is an indivisible quality. Belly dancers wish they had your flexibility. Remember that sovereignty is never total; not only must the federal government yield to other nations in some matters, but there are still areas (admittedly very few with proggies ascendant) where the federal government must yield sovereignty to the states. Until Obamacare, health insurance was one such.
Madison's entire letter is addressing the need to remove the states' power to simply avoid the federal government's enumerated powers by state legislation. Without this power, the federal government can have no powers at all. Your interpretation is simply though not surprisingly dishonest.
Because he couldn't afford to be seen dealing with The Dreaded Obamacare.
I suppose we have one world government then, for since the USA is bound by treaties, conventions and certain UN resolutions it cannot be sovereign in eskimospy-world. On the other hand, even local governments have sovereign immunity in certain legal matters, so I suppose every local government is its own sovereign nation with total power. Hmm, it's almost like a definition tortured for political gain no longer works . . .Oh and additionally, friend werepossum, there is no such thing as stripping away 'a little' sovereignty. You are either sovereign or you are not. In a federation the states are not sovereign as they are fundamentally prohibited from withdrawing from the federal system as a whole. (remember the civil war?)
A state is sovereign within its own limited sphere. It's axiomatic that if every state had unlimited sovereignty, there could be no union of any kind, and certainly no republic. Even under the Articles of Confederacy, states had given up sovereignty in certain matters - declaring war, making peace, establishing treaties. Even the dimmest bulb should be able to ken that if the states had already given up some sovereignty, then either sovereignty must not be absolute or Madison would not have been proposing limiting it again.Full Definition of SOVEREIGN
1
a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter
2
: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
See sovereign defined for English-language learners »
See sovereign defined for kids »
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.Originally Posted by dbk View Post
Why no up-and-down vote on a clean CR? Last time I checked, the GOP holds the majority in the House.
I suppose we have one world government then, for since the USA is bound by treaties, conventions and certain UN resolutions it cannot be sovereign in eskimospy-world. On the other hand, even local governments have sovereign immunity in certain legal matters, so I suppose every local government is its own sovereign nation with total power. Hmm, it's almost like a definition tortured for political gain no longer works . . .
Just in case anyone is thinking that this might be the one thread where eskimospy might be less than dishonest:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign
A state is sovereign within its own limited sphere. It's axiomatic that if every state had unlimited sovereignty, there could be no union of any kind, and certainly no republic. Even under the Articles of Confederacy, states had given up sovereignty in certain matters - declaring war, making peace, establishing treaties. Even the dimmest bulb should be able to ken that if the states had already given up some sovereignty, then either sovereignty must not be absolute or Madison would not have been proposing limiting it again.
Haha, the best you got is a simple metaphor for something the Republicans actually want to do? Oh wow, they don't want to push grandma over a cliff, they are just content to tell her to go fuck herself when she has no moiney for healthcare. And fuck her SS payments, too. Gotta cut those "entitlements!"
Meanwhile, Republicans destroy bullshit meters on a daily basis.
Nope. It would be because of the Hastert Rule which Boehner, it seems to me, has been fairly consistent in adhering to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
Fern
There are NO powers granted to the states; there are only powers NOT granted to the federal government and therefore PRESERVED for the states. Just to make that absolutely clear, the Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment: 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.This is flatly false. The states are not independent. If you mean sovereignty within a state (which is a different thing), when you are talking about areas they have been granted powers by the federal constitution that's one thing, but in the end even the powers that the states exercise jurisdiction over are granted to (or deliberately not taken away by) the federal constitution.
As as aside, James Madison explicitly argued later in his life that by signing the Constitution the states had surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government.
I now see that once it was pointed out that you simply didn't understand some of the terms in the letter you don't stop for a moment to apologize, you instead just once again try to impugn my integrity. A negative is a veto. Flat out.
It's weaselly and more than a little pathetic, but not surprising.
Not to mention that Obamacare loots hundreds of billion of dollars from Medicare/Medicaid. Gotta give the Dems credit, even in a city of liars they stand out as particularly accomplished.It's a metaphor for stupidity or out right lying, maybe both. Look, Grandma doesn't give a sh!t about Obamacare because she is on Medicare/Medicaid.
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.Originally Posted by Fern
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
There are NO powers granted to the states; there are only powers NOT granted to the federal government and therefore PRESERVED for the states. Just to make that absolutely clear, the Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment: 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.
And I would never try to impugn your integrity. That would be like trying to impugn a unicorn.
Neither a temporary shut down nor debt ceiling fight will have much affect, if any, or business planning. They are both exceedingly temporary and touch few businesses in any way. Obamacare touches them all (at least those with 50 or more employees). Much different thing.
Fern
While I agree a weak government in certain points is unworkable. However, the founding fathers feared a government with absolute power, and that is where we are today.
.
You're clueless. The constitutionality of the ACA has already been upheld by SCOTUS. That's the end of the story. The only question was if the ACA was a valid exercise of federal power, and it was ruled to be so. If the federal government's exercise of power is valid, it immediately overrides anything the states do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
After you get out of economics class, head across the hall to civics 101.