lonewolf wrote:Most importantly, this amendment trumps implied powers:
Amendment X
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.
I'm not sure about this amendment. When was it amended ?
Is this what Andrew Jackson fought against as he tried to keep the states unified ? I remember Jackson fighting with Southern states about what rights they had, but I can't remember the details.
Would this have given the states the right to secede ? And did it make Lincoln wrong, forcing them to stay in the Union ?
lonewolf wrote:Most importantly, this amendment trumps implied powers:
Amendment X
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.
I'm not sure about this amendment. When was it amended ?
Is this what Andrew Jackson fought against as he tried to keep the states unified ? I remember Jackson fighting with Southern states about what rights they had, but I can't remember the details.
Would this have given the states the right to secede ? And did it make Lincoln wrong, forcing them to stay in the Union ?
Geez Bill. Its in the Bill Of Rights.
This does not give states the right of secession, as they forfeited that upon ratification. No to Jackson, too.
What this does is declare that any powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government or specifically denied to the states by the US Constitution are the responsibility, right and domain of the states themselves.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Numbers are completely irrelevant 10%, 50% 100%. Percentages have nothing to do with the enumerations in the Constitution. Its just yes or no.
The point is, they had all those conditions (poverty, et. al.) when the Constitution was written, but intentionally did not specify them in the Constitution. This is because they were deemed by the framers of the Constitution to be the domain of the state governments.
I am hoping you think these guys who framed the Constitution were pretty smart guys, right? When they were making their shopping list of powers to be granted to the federal government, do you think they just forgot about poverty? Perhaps a blonde moment? A brain fart?
Read this, damn it! James Madison (you know, that really smart guy who pretty much wrote the Constitution) wrote this to describe the relationship between the federal government and the states. I'm pretty sure he was writing about that Constitution thingie he just got done putting together:
"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. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Cities like Altoona would die off without the help of the federal government. Then all the people, from all of the poor towns, would move to the big cities that have money. This is a big part of why Rome fell. So would our big cities. The writers, never would have guessed that small cities comprised such a large portion of the population.
I could go on too. In each scenario.
Is that part of the same logic that has poor states like WV, Mississippi and Arkansas sending tax money to DC to bail out super rich states like New York and California?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Cities like Altoona would die off without the help of the federal government. Then all the people, from all of the poor towns, would move to the big cities that have money. This is a big part of why Rome fell. So would our big cities. The writers, never would have guessed that small cities comprised such a large portion of the population.
I could go on too. In each scenario.
Is that part of the same logic that has poor states like WV, Mississippi and Arkansas sending tax money to DC to bail out super rich states like New York and California?
RobTheDrummer wrote:Lonewolf is the only one that makes any sense on this whole forum.
I agree he is smart, BUT just because he says how it should be with states vs. feds. It isn't that way. We can go on forever about that subject BUT the reality is that it is not that way now. The federal power will not go back to the states. We have to deal with how things are now. Not how we wished they were.
lonewolf can digress as much as he wants into state vs. the federal government. Unfortunately it has little to do with today.
I wouldn't say it's off topic. But a side track that is lost forever.
Hawk wrote:I doubt the writers envisioned a population in the millions and the poor at 10% of that.
You doubt what? If we were having a beer and you said that, I would spray it out of my mouth and start laughing my ass off.
I guess those guys who wrote that Constitution thingie must not have been all that bright after all, huh?
Do you really think they envisioned a society with houses like we have today, with the expense of running or renting such houses ? With gas for heating, electricity and maintenance as much as it is today ? To take care of the poor back then was not as expensive as it is today. They could not see the future as smart as they were.
Back then, if someone had no heat, a neighbor might give him some wood. Taking care of your brethren was common place. Today, the electric company shuts you off and you die. Do you think they thought of that ?
The entire population is going to be poor if we keep up spending the way we do. This is the reason that the framers wanted limited government. Well, we let it get out of hand, now we are all fucked.
lonewolf wrote:
You doubt what? If we were having a beer and you said that, I would spray it out of my mouth and start laughing my ass off.
I guess those guys who wrote that Constitution thingie must not have been all that bright after all, huh?
What is the number of poor today ? I think the writers would be upset at that number, and want to do something about it.
Most definitely a lesser percentage that at the beginning of this country.
Lesser percentage but a much higher number. Near five million, depending on how "poor" is defined. The USA ranks 18th with seventeen other countries having less poor people.
Even if the number is one million, it is still way too many for the land of plenty.
RobTheDrummer wrote:The entire population is going to be poor if we keep up spending the way we do. This is the reason that the framers wanted limited government. Well, we let it get out of hand, now we are all fucked.
I agree that spending beyond our means for the feds has been out of control, by both parties. But with the situation we have now, is there any other way to invigorate the economy ? Much of the money spent will end up in the private sector as they bid for projects.
I wished (yeah, fantasy land) that the government was forced by law to not spend more than they took in. Or we could fine them or jail them.
RobTheDrummer wrote:The entire population is going to be poor if we keep up spending the way we do. This is the reason that the framers wanted limited government. Well, we let it get out of hand, now we are all fucked.
I agree that spending beyond our means for the feds has been out of control, by both parties. But with the situation we have now, is there any other way to invigorate the economy ? Much of the money spent will end up in the private sector as they bid for projects.
I wished (yeah, fantasy land) that the government was forced by law to not spend more than they took in. Or we could fine them or jail them.
Bill, we agree on the same stuff all the time, just the way to get there man! When you are saying stuff, it sounds like you wanna keep up the spending, that's not going to work. We spend way too much money on shit that doesn't need spend. We need to CONSERVE money, not spend it. If I knew the answer I would run in a campaign, too bad the people that run in campaigns have no idea either.
Hawk wrote:I doubt the writers envisioned a population in the millions and the poor at 10% of that.
You doubt what? If we were having a beer and you said that, I would spray it out of my mouth and start laughing my ass off.
I guess those guys who wrote that Constitution thingie must not have been all that bright after all, huh?
What is the number of poor today ? I think the writers would be upset at that number, and want to do something about it.
Poverty was rampant during 18th & 19th century America. By our standards (and adjusting for technology), most Americans were living in poverty when the Constitution was drafted. Most were happy to get a pair of boots. A very large number were---yes---living on public assistance, all of it local, zero federal. Here is a link to a book on the subject:
I believe the framers of the Constitution would be very proud of America's achievements and marvel at how well all but a very, very relative few homeless live today.
I also believe that they would be infuriated to see that a few generations of greedy, self-serving politicians mishandled their constitutional duties and have brought the Republic to the brink of bankruptcy thru massive, unnecessary debt. Alexander Hamilton would probably challenge today's Congress to duels.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Pay careful attention and try to put this into perspective:
The money wasted on paying interest alone on the national debt in 2008($451 thousand-million) is equivalent to an annual income of $50,000 for more than 9 million people. If that was translated into families of 4, it would be enough (in most places) to support 36 million people.
This number will rise sharply during the coming years.
Or how about this:
If every man, woman and child in Cleveland was penniless, it would be enough to make every one of them a millionaire.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
RobTheDrummer wrote:Lonewolf is the only one that makes any sense on this whole forum.
Indeed.
Not at all. Hawk's shining a light on conservative thought here. His responses and original points were calm and to the point.
ucjoe got to write "B. Hussein" for the eleventy-third time this week (that's PRESIDENT B. Hussein, kind sir.), and posted a Pat Buchanan link to show his wide-ranging quest for objectivity.
Lonewolf was studied as always, detailing the constitutionality of f**king the poor, who are apparently all on welfare. A number of the framers and signers of the Constitution were slave owners. They were Deists, not deities... they had flaws. They believed that all men were created equal, just some more equal than others.
I'd say Bill held his own very nicely. What he didn't get his opponents to admit to, you could read between the lines. Well done. Good read, fella's, I'm glad I decided to check this thread before I went to bed.--->JMS
RobTheDrummer wrote:Lonewolf is the only one that makes any sense on this whole forum.
Indeed.
Not at all. Hawk's shining a light on conservative thought here. His responses and original points were calm and to the point.
ucjoe got to write "B. Hussein" for the eleventy-third time this week (that's PRESIDENT B. Hussein, kind sir.), and posted a Pat Buchanan link to show his wide-ranging quest for objectivity.
Lonewolf was studied as always, detailing the constitutionality of f**king the poor, who are apparently all on welfare. A number of the framers and signers of the Constitution were slave owners. They were Deists, not deities... they had flaws. They believed that all men were created equal, just some more equal than others.
I'd say Bill held his own very nicely. What he didn't get his opponents to admit to, you could read between the lines. Well done. Good read, fella's, I'm glad I decided to check this thread before I went to bed.--->JMS
You bet...er....well...um...at least that's how it would seem to a fellow left-thinking Democrat.
Last edited by lonewolf on Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
--->JMS
