One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 11, 2019 16:40:08   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 17:21:48   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
Parky60 wrote:
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.
b How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New ... (show quote)


Excellent!! Thank you for posting this!!

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 18:41:27   #
Radiance3
 
Parky60 wrote:
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.
b How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New ... (show quote)

===========
Thank you for expounding the framework of our Constitution.With regards to the 3 equal branches of governance:
The Executive
The Legislative
The Supreme Court
Do you think that our Constitution at present does not function according to its framework? It seems to me that the Legislative has been excessively abusing its powers over the Executive and the Supreme Court for political aggrandizement. What do you think?

Reply
 
 
Aug 11, 2019 18:54:17   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Parky60 wrote:
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.
b How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New ... (show quote)


Great post! Confirms what many of us have known for a long time: l*****ts and big government advocates don’t really love or appreciate the heart and soul of what makes America both great and exceptional!

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 19:12:37   #
Radiance3
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Great post! Confirms what many of us have known for a long time: l*****ts and big government advocates don’t really love or appreciate the heart and soul of what makes America both great and exceptional!

===============
Indeed, and the merits go to all the Framers, Founders and Signers of this greatest document that last forever. The framers ensured that will be equally functional during their time, today, and tomorrow.

The brilliant minds of our Founders, we are the beneficiaries of their hard work and wisdom. I am grateful.

Why are the socialist-democrats demolishing their statues?
I want them standing forever. We have inherited so much fruits of their sacrifices.

And if you elect those dumb faithless socialist-democrats, our country's history will be lost forever. They'll re-write their own political correctness socialism form of governance. Please don't v**e for anyone of the democrat-socialist on Nov. 2020. Please get rid of all of them. Thank you.

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 19:24:52   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===============
Indeed, and the merits go to all the Framers, Founders and Signers of this greatest document that last forever. The framers ensured that will be equally functional during their time, today, and tomorrow.

The brilliant minds of our Founders, we are the beneficiaries of their hard work and wisdom. I am grateful.

Why are the socialist-democrats demolishing their statues?
I want them standing forever. We have inherited so much fruits of their sacrifices.

And if you elect those dumb faithless socialist-democrats, our country's history will be lost forever. They'll re-write their own political correctness socialism form of governance. Please don't v**e for anyone of the democrat-socialist on Nov. 2020. Please get rid of all of them. Thank you.
=============== br Indeed, and the merits go to al... (show quote)




I do believe our only true enemy is ignorance. “Willful ignorance” being the most tenacious of all.

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 20:07:57   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===========
Thank you for expounding the framework of our Constitution.With regards to the 3 equal branches of governance:
The Executive
The Legislative
The Supreme Court
Do you think that our Constitution at present does not function according to its framework? It seems to me that the Legislative has been excessively abusing its powers over the Executive and the Supreme Court for political aggrandizement. What do you think?

The only comment I'll make is that it appears that many powers that are supposed to be the states are under the power of the federal government.

Tench Coxe wrote that the Constitution granted little or no federal jurisdiction over many of the activities that were granted to the states. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases. When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Sounds to me like we're not following the Constitution.

Reply
 
 
Aug 11, 2019 20:49:00   #
Radiance3
 
Parky60 wrote:
The only comment I'll make is that it appears that many powers that are supposed to be the states are under the power of the federal government.

Tench Coxe wrote that the Constitution granted little or no federal jurisdiction over many of the activities that were granted to the states. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases. When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Sounds to me like we're not following the Constitution.
The only comment I'll make is that it appears that... (show quote)


===============
It appears that we have great discrepancies the Federal taking over state jurisdictions. Now the Federal Jurisdiction is over burdened. Perhaps it was purposely done to lessen the burden of the state and for uniformity of policy applications. Or perhaps ignorance indeed.

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 21:21:35   #
tommsteyer
 
I wish the Founders had known about A****a and told us what to do about that.

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 21:57:14   #
Larai Loc: Fallon, NV
 
tommsteyer wrote:
I wish the Founders had known about A****a and told us what to do about that.


I wish the Founders had known about the civil war and subsequent take over of the states by the fed!.. When ever the federal gov't steps on a states rights, v**ers & constitution.. someone says the Fed can do what they want... we lost that war... for states rights!. So the Federal Gov't took over and has Not let go since! Best current example of this is the DEA and FBI and even ATF busting legal by State, for growing cannabis, but the Fed over rules due to the "Schedule 1" laws.. The war on drugs has cost this country Billions over the years...

My opinion, and appparently God's Opinion in Genisis Chapter 1 "9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

May not make sense to some folks. but Man made booze n Pills.. God made Pot.. who do You Trust!!.. personally, I trust a God given medicine that has been used for 10K Years.. vs the Poison that Doc's throw at ya.. Federal Gov't needs to get the Fk Outta my life!! As the Founders envisioned!!.. Not this Nanny state baby sitter gov't gotta do everything for you mentality that Are Liberals!! Honestly.. Atm Trump is Pissin me off in a BIG way.. Not happy with his turn about, regarding Keeping our 2nd Amendment Rights Intact.. But somewhere Trump Lost sight of the Definition of "Shall NOT BE Infringed!!" If you take Guns away from Law Abiding Citizens ONLY Criminals/Outlaws will have them.. and those I***ts think that those "shooters" Any of them aquired their weapons "Legally" they are Fkn Dreamin!! Get a Grip and Quit blaming the Gun.. Federal Gov't Get outta My damn Face!! MY Life!!...

Reply
Aug 11, 2019 22:23:24   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Larai wrote:
I wish the Founders had known about the civil war and subsequent take over of the states by the fed!.. When ever the federal gov't steps on a states rights, v**ers & constitution.. someone says the Fed can do what they want... we lost that war... for states rights!. So the Federal Gov't took over and has Not let go since! Best current example of this is the DEA and FBI and even ATF busting legal by State, for growing cannabis, but the Fed over rules due to the "Schedule 1" laws.. The war on drugs has cost this country Billions over the years...

My opinion, and appparently God's Opinion in Genisis Chapter 1 "9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

May not make sense to some folks. but Man made booze n Pills.. God made Pot.. who do You Trust!!.. personally, I trust a God given medicine that has been used for 10K Years.. vs the Poison that Doc's throw at ya.. Federal Gov't needs to get the Fk Outta my life!! As the Founders envisioned!!.. Not this Nanny state baby sitter gov't gotta do everything for you mentality that Are Liberals!! Honestly.. Atm Trump is Pissin me off in a BIG way.. Not happy with his turn about, regarding Keeping our 2nd Amendment Rights Intact.. But somewhere Trump Lost sight of the Definition of "Shall NOT BE Infringed!!" If you take Guns away from Law Abiding Citizens ONLY Criminals/Outlaws will have them.. and those I***ts think that those "shooters" Any of them aquired their weapons "Legally" they are Fkn Dreamin!! Get a Grip and Quit blaming the Gun.. Federal Gov't Get outta My damn Face!! MY Life!!...
I wish the Founders had known about the civil war ... (show quote)


I agree with you, Larai.

The Democrat Party is NWO bound on steroids, the Republicans are just the NWO lite version. Just because they’re more subtle, doesn’t mean they’re not being herded in the same general direction. Since we’ve lost the true checks and balances: an educated populace, all the politicians, with rare exceptions of course, invariably succumb to the taste of power and authority.

Trump’s “MAGA” theme never really exalted the Constitution itself as the ultimate solution. He’s like a Christian who only wants to use the Bible as far as he can find verses that confirm his preconceptions; not as something to constantly and consciously seek to retrain his mind to, and strictly conform to. I never hear him saying “we need to get back to the constitution” or the like. Personally, I believe that’s what needs to be said, loudly and consistently by someone, if we really want to trust him or her.

Same goes for Christians! Most Christians just use the Bible to confirm and defend their denomination or traditions and they could really care less what the apostle’s meant with their words!

The two worlds, secular and religious, seem to parallel each other, from my point of view anyway.

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2019 11:29:36   #
bikerlee
 
Parky60 wrote:
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.
b How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New ... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 11:38:25   #
bikerlee
 
AWSOME, great piece, but (and I can't understand) why do some people elected to office want to strip and or modify the Constitution, and why do we as a country keep electing those people to office.
Don't they have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, and if they should lobby to make changes or remove any amendment or any part of the Constitution that person or persons should be removed from office.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 14:04:10   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
TommyRadd wrote:
...Most Christians just use the Bible to confirm and defend their denomination or traditions and they could really care less what the apostle’s meant with their words!...

I guarantee you that is not my intention. My intention when using the Word of God is to convey t***h. Only problem is that most don't want to hear it.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires. 2 Timothy 4:3

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 14:15:03   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Parky60 wrote:
How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.
b How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New ... (show quote)


This is like, the parts the various supreme courts forgot, right?

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.