Sic Puppy on July 31, 2009 at 7:54 AM

It’s not a contradiction; I squeezed two ideas together, abridging both. The Con grants powers to the national government, with the understanding that ONLY those powers are granted. I was responding to someone who said that ‘promote’ and ‘provide’ were very different, and was more interested in refuting that point than in going into detail on the Constitution itself

aelhues on July 31, 2009 at 11:55 AM

No, you do not understand what I’m saying. If that ‘boggles’ you, that’s something only you can deal with.

My point, which you apparently missed, was that the Constitution can be understood as a list of what the national government cannot do, in that all powers not given to government are reserved for the states and the people themselves.

/Boggle?

I’m completely baffled by this paragraph. The quote (not in quotes), from the tenth amendment, means the exact opposite of what you are arguing.

Here is a quote from Federalist No.45 written by James Madison that should be instructive on the matter.

“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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Because the Constitution was a list of enumerated powers, there was worry initially that a Bill of Rights, ran the risk of undermining the Constitution by giving the impression that other than the rights listed, government could do what it wished. Which is exactly why the tenth amendment was included, despite its essential redundancy. It was an attempt to make it was abundantly clear that the constitution only grants those powers that are listed, and all others are off limits. Unfortunately, that clear language has failed in its intent.

An article of this sort that doesnt address the blatant lawbreaking of Bush and Cheney is obviously a partisan exercise. The alleged concern for the rule of law is a fig leaf for a tired attack from the right.

For a more honest, and more legally supportable, take on this issue, read Glenn Greenwald.

orange on July 31, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Hi Glenn! Thanks for dropping by. I think you’re right – we really need to get Bush and Cheney out of office. I’m glad you’re putting so much effort into that urgent crusade. Be sure to troll our comments again when you finish your next tedious rant about Chimpy McHitlerburton and Darth Cheney, and drop us a link, okay? I’m sure everyone is looking forward to it as much as I am.

By the way, isn’t “orange” kind of a boring name for a sock puppet? I thought your earlier sock puppet names were much more inspired.

Bishop on July 30, 2009

Please let me add my 1-1/4 cents worth (after taxes)…
(It would be great if the mere threat of violence alone could effect the changes desired. But I assume you don’t think the armed citizens should be carrying empty guns, Bishop. Your previous postings suggest otherwise and the following is not directed at you.)
In his book, Common Sense, Glenn Beck decries the need for another armed revolution. Multiple times he speaks out against violence as a productive means to affect change. I understand why he does this; because he believes it for one and he has enough people calling him unhinged without adding more fuel to the fire. It’s a very worthwhile book, but I take issue with him on this point.
If we fail at the ballot box, are we left with nothing but to throw up our hands and say, “oh well, will of the people and all”? That’s fine, if that’s ones attitude, but is it brutish and “crazy” to suggest that the failure of peaceful action nullifies any possible further means? Are we left to watch our beloved nation circle the drain with no recourse, however awful, to stem the flow? Are we not even allowed to discuss the posssibility without being labled all manner of nasty things by the more timid souls among you?
By all means, we must bust our asses to bring about the changes we desire within the framework of law and democratic action. Every conceivable effort must be put to that task. But IF all that fails, what then? Do we surrender and submit? Do we try again in another two/four years, hoping we can convince more people than last time?Every day spent sliding down that slope into serfdom makes the climb back out harder and harder. How much harder in two or four years hence? In that event, pray God, it never happens, those of you who think me and like minds are little more than paranoid alarmists with a violent streak, please keep huddled and cowering in your corners and stay out of the way. History can decide if we were armed and willing patriots or just insane pu$$ies with guns. Either way, your opinion won’t matter then.

For a more honest, and more legally supportable, take on this issue, read Glenn Greenwald.

Special K on July 30, 2009 at 7:49 PM

They did spend like drunken sailors. That is why we have to get rid of them and stop voting for the ‘RNC approved’ candidates. The RNC is more interested in listening to the Media and trying to be ‘liked’ than they are in doing the right thing and standing on principle. I am so sick of their notion that ‘we have to do something’ and it is not as bad as what Democrats came up with. But whatever they have been advancing still stinks and are against the base principles of the GOP.

It is time to support only those who are conservative in thought and deed. Stand up and let them know that they will not get another dollar for campaigning if they are not rock solid conservative and fight this Marxist president and congress!

the Constitution can be understood as a list of what the national government cannot do, in that all powers not given to government are reserved for the states and the people themselves.

Do you not understand that statement is a direct contradiction?

all powers NOT GIVEN… The Constitution is a granting of specific powers, if it is not in there, you can’t do it.

A state run system might pass Constitutional muster, but it would never be attempted because the states don’t have the ability to print money.

Ajacksonian, when I have more time, I will read over yours; it is much longer and I don’t have time for it right now.

Sorry, Doctor Zero doesn’t do it for me.
Ed and Allah are more crisp and salient.
guntotinglibertarian on July 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

I respectfully disagree.
I think Doc is the best writer on this site. He does more than just comment on the news, he analyzes it, and forces the reader to actually come to terms with the subject.

His writing is worthy of any news organization on-line or in the print media.

Susanboo on July 30, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Great post Doctor Zero and Susanboo I agree w/your disagreement :) – I try to categorize & bookmark ‘keepers’ into various Internet folders, but have a special folder marked ‘Philosophy’ that is just for articles that fit the bill and hold special merit. It grows slowly and is designed that way, but since the Doctor’s been writing here in the Green Room, I’ve been able to start filling it again.

Indeed. I’ve called Perry several times, begging him to do just what he did. After he said that he would allow Texans to be exempt from Obamacare, I called him and thanked him up one side and down another. I’ve lost all hope in the Fed. I’ve completely shifted all my focus to Texas, for it to push back and protect Texans.

Weight of Glory on July 30, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Yeah, Perry has really hit home with a lot of us in Texas recently. I am concerned about Kay Bailey running against him in the upcoming primary because she is so wishy washy, and may attract more Rinos and Dems. He has been in office for a while, but I feel that with what is going on in Washington right now, we really need someone with his assertive attitude, (Kay would never stand up to Obama). I think Perry can win again against the Dems, as long as he can make it through the primary.

Sorry, Doctor Zero doesn’t do it for me.

Ed and Allah are more crisp and salient.

guntotinglibertarian on July 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

I respectfully disagree.
I think Doc is the best writer on this site. He does more than just comment on the news, he analyzes it, and forces the reader to actually come to terms with the subject.

His writing is worthy of any news organization on-line or in the print media.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2009 at 9:37 PM

Good Stuff:

“This is the quintessential understanding of the Revolution – that society is the basis for creating government, and that society has the right to change, alter or abolish any government that abuses it. The Declaration would also include that huge portion after the upper two paragraphs that would state, in detail, what each and every abuse was. This is necessary as it shows an understanding of the rights of citizens under the Crown and the rights of ANY citizen under ANY form of government, and why a government that abuses those rights and the liberty of the populace is harmful to it and worthy of being changed or abolished. Neither Common Sense or the Declaration of Independence are political documents or manifestos: they are documents showing the basic and foundational concepts of how governments are made, why they are made and what the best form of government should be and that any form is absolutely beholden to society… not the other way around.”

Jackson was part of that ‘aristocracy of merit’ which was so crucial to America and Britain but was suppressed elsewhere by an inbred elite. As a farm boy from the backwoods he knew about class and prejudice, but rose quickly into the upper levels of society–and identified both with his origins and with the people he rose to join.

For a start at serious reform, NO lawyers should be allowed to serve in the Legislature, since it is an OBVIOUS and inherent conflict of interest.

They should be required, by law, to retire from practicing Law, permanently, if they want to be law-makers.

Otherwise it is a continuous and corrupt[ing] circle jerk from which they and their cronies always profit and become sleazy and unethical profiteers.

Criticism of long and didactic pieces is why I turned down the Green Room invitation as that is about all I write. I’m glad they could find someone who can do shorter pieces and get the same point across…

Janos Hunyadi on July 30, 2009 at 9:10 PM

My sincerest apologies.

Chaz706 on July 30, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I’m not missing anything, and I know the difference between the two words. I was not writing about the ‘job’ of government, but it’s purpose.

There is no inherent conflict between ‘promote’ and ‘provide’: I can promote ( advance the cause or fortunes of ) something by providing for it. The concepts are not opposites or mutually exclusive.

My point, which you apparently missed, was that the Constitution can be understood as a list of what the national government cannot do, in that all powers not given to government are reserved for the states and the people themselves.

The Con does not forbid the national government from providing health care, and such care is already provided to the poor and elderly–and these programs have been upheld as constitutional ( with the usual justification being that they are part of ‘promoting the general welfare’ )

I’m not in favor of any changes or any aspect of any of the current proposed legislation “Obamacare”

Remind me never to post when I have had a glass of wine.

DrMagnolias on July 30, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I’m a little iffy with the 17th amendment thing.

Roland Burris is my ‘Exhibit A’ in that argument.

Of course, there is always the punishment we can administer at the ballot box, but this is precisely what I mean by “limited means.” The rate of re-election for the House of Representatives hovers around 95%, and rarely drops below 90% .

Repealing the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward rectifying this problem.

They build their objections upon principles that do not exist, which the Constitution does not support them in, and the existence of which has been, by an appeal to the Constitution itself flatly denied; and then, as if they were unanswerable, draw all the dreadful consequences that are necessary to alarm the apprehensions of the ignorant or unthinking. It is not the interest of the major part of those characters to be convinced; nor will their local views yield to arguments, which do not accord with their present, or future prospects.

George Washington, November 10, 1787