[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Yeah I am sure about that- the articles of Confederation were too weak so they bumped it up a little. Even Obama has comnplained that teh Constitution restricts teh fed too much.

Not to keep chasing a point that is off topic, but now you're really off... The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that under them the Federal Government was too small and limited. They were replaced by the constitution (which was very controversial) to give the Federal Government far more power than it had before.

So again, you said:

Our founders crafted our constitution to protect froma strong central govt. cause they knew that power corruptsa and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted th egreatest power as close to the people as possible.

which is just historically inaccurate. The constitution was actually drafted to increase the power and scope of the central Federal government

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Teh fact that our governemtn practiced the Christina faith is self evident in the writings.

The writings are meaningless without the actions to back them up. Even if there were evidence for a vast majority of our founders having written documents with christianese interwoven into them, its obvious from the actions of our government, not only around the time of our founding, but also subsequent administrations/eras of our government, that there is no christian basis for our country whatsoever.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Not to keep chasing a point that is off topic, but now you're really off... The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that under them the Federal Government was too small and limited. They were replaced by the constitution (which was very controversial) to give the Federal Government far more power than it had before.

So again, you said:



which is just historically inaccurate. The constitution was actually drafted to increase the power and scope of the central Federal government

As far as compared to teh Articles of Confed, yes They saw they needed to give the federal govt. more power to keep the nation together. But the constitution is a restrictive document because it limits teh fed to only those things enumerated. They wanted the fed to have more authority- but only enough to keep the nation together. The founders did not want to create another storng central govt. They went to great lengths to protect Amer4ica from becoming another England where massive power was centralized with a small group or individual. Make no mistake- teh founders wanted the federal governmetn to have only enough power- that is why the tenth amendment restrictsd the fed and has been roundly ignored by more modern justices .

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

As far as compared to teh Articles of Confed, yes They saw they needed to give the federal govt. more power to keep the nation together. But the constitution is a restrictive document because it limits teh fed to only those things enumerated. ... Make no mistake- teh founders wanted the federal governmetn to have only enough power- that is why the tenth amendment restrictsd the fed and has been roundly ignored by more modern justices .

Where is the word 'enumerated' in the 10th amendment?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Where is the word 'enumerated' in the 10th amendment?

Teh actual word is delegated

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.

enumerate verb /ɪˈnjuː.mə.reɪt//-ˈnuː.mɚ.eɪt/ v [T] formal to name things separately, one by one
He enumerated the benefits of the insurance scheme.

delegate verb ( GIVE ) /ˈdel.ɪ.geɪt/ v
[I or T] to give a particular job, duty, right, etc. to someone else so that they do it for you

Though they have diiferences- they were synonymous enough (to me) to understand that the federal governement is restricted to those things the constitution delegates to it.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Though they have diiferences- they were synonymous enough (to me) to understand that the federal governement is restricted to those things the constitution delegates to it.

Then,

1. Stop using the word 'enumerated' is if it it in the constitution.

2. That isn't what the founders believed, since the very first Supreme Court case (Marbury v. Madison) deals with implied powers, or powers the Federal gov't has that aren't enumerated or delegated.

3. I hoep you're ready to undo 200 years of Federal jurisprudence, since judicial review itself is an implied power.

This use of the 10th amendment is absurdist in the extreme. This is like saying that the interstate commerce clause only applies to the space between the borders of two different states.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Then,

1. Stop using the word 'enumerated' is if it it in the constitution.

2. That isn't what the founders believed, since the very first Supreme Court case (Marbury v. Madison) deals with implied powers, or powers the Federal gov't has that aren't enumerated or delegated.

3. I hoep you're ready to undo 200 years of Federal jurisprudence, since judicial review itself is an implied power.

This use of the 10th amendment is absurdist in the extreme. This is like saying that the interstate commerce clause only applies to the space between the borders of two different states.

Point no 1 is a little nitpicky-- But I will stay with delgated

delegate verb ( GIVE ) /ˈdel.ɪ.geɪt/ v
[I or T] to give a particular job, duty, right, etc. to someone else so that they do it for you

That is what the founders believed- because they put it in the constitution!

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 doesn't take rocket science to see!

This use of the 10th amendment is absurdist in the extreme. This is like saying that the interstate commerce clause only applies to the space between the borders of two different states.

False anaolgy- because now you are being woodenly literal when th efounders defined what they meant here.

2. That isn't what the founders believed, since the very first Supreme Court case (Marbury v. Madison) deals with implied powers, or powers the Federal gov't has that aren't enumerated or delegated.

Well that is law by Judicial fiat. th econstitution simpy says if it isn't dlegated to the fed or prohibited to the states- it belongs to the states or th epeople. Period. No what ifs, or "but what about" or "but SCotus thinks".

3. I hoep you're ready to undo 200 years of Federal jurisprudence, since judicial review itself is an implied power

.

False claim of extreme conclusions- not all SCOTUS or fed court decisions are wrong- but some have over stepped the bounds of the constitution.

Teh fouunders devised a system to change teh constitution- its called amending it! If people want ot give th efed more power than what teh constitution dlegates to it- then they should make the case and allow the states to decide.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

False claim of extreme conclusions- not all SCOTUS or fed court decisions are wrong- but some have over stepped the bounds of the constitution.

The power of the courts to review law for constitutional scrutiny is, itself, an implied power of the Court. If you reject implied powers, you reject judicial review. So it isn't over stating the case to say that all Constitutional jurisprudence from Marbury to present is without force since the Constitution does not 'delegate' the power for judicial review to the federal courts.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

The power of the courts to review law for constitutional scrutiny is, itself, an implied power of the Court. If you reject implied powers, you reject judicial review. So it isn't over stating the case to say that all Constitutional jurisprudence from Marbury to present is without force since the Constitution does not 'delegate' the power for judicial review to the federal courts.

Article 3: Section 2 Any case brought before the Supreme Court that has constitutional issues may be heard by the Court. That is not an implied power. Teh Court cannot go out and troll for cases, but cases brought it. Teh Supreme Cour is not a criminal court, but a court that determines the constitutionality of issues brought before it. NOw you can nuance words all you want but that is judicial review.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

If SCOTUS were not able to review constitutionality- then there is no purpose of SCOTUS.

but notice that they have congressional authority over them.

Judicial review has become muddied over the years as we get left and right tilting courts. So what one court declares right- another declares wrong- that is the probelm in our nation now- we o longer are a nation of law- but have become a nation of men- where th ewhim de-jour can become law.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

If SCOTUS were not able to review constitutionality- then there is no purpose of SCOTUS.

Thank you for proving my point. The whole issue of Marbury v. Madison was to decide this very issue, since, again, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. In fact, one of the arguments that the anti-Federalists made against ratification of the Constitution was the lack of an explicit statement that Judicial Review existed. In fact, Jefferson himself objected to the decision.

You're all over the place on this. On one hand, you make the argument that there are no implied powers in the Constitution and ask us to hold to an austic reading of the Constitution that limits the powers of the Federal gov't only to those explicitly 'delegated' in the text. Since Marbury argued Judicial Review without that 'explicitly delegated' power in the text of Art. III, then your reading would completely undo everything the Supreme Court has done since 1803.

This is the reality of your reading of the 10th Amendment. The Framers did not read it the way you are. The Courts have never read it in the manner in which you are reading it. Exactly why should we take your reading as the proper one, again?

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

As far as compared to teh Articles of Confed, yes They saw they needed to give the federal govt. more power to keep the nation together.

Exactly. I always hear conservatives these days talk about how we need a smaller federal government. I guess they've forgotten that we already tried that little experiment and it almost destroyed this country before we got started... It quickly became apparent that the federal government needed to be drastically increased in size, scope and power.
Oh, and despite what some of the radio guys will tell you health care reform is not nearly as drastic an expansion of government as the constitution was

Originally Posted by nolidad

But the constitution is a restrictive document because it limits teh fed to only those things enumerated. They wanted the fed to have more authority- but only enough to keep the nation together. The founders did not want to create another storng central govt. They went to great lengths to protect Amer4ica from becoming another England where massive power was centralized with a small group or individual. Make no mistake- teh founders wanted the federal governmetn to have only enough power- that is why the tenth amendment restrictsd the fed and has been roundly ignored by more modern justices .

The thing you need to realize is that these founders and framers of the constitution weren't a cohesive group who all had the same ideals, all thought the same way and all had the same goals for this nation. They were all over the map. There were fierce debates all over the place as to how things should be done. There were duels fought over this stuff. To say they all wanted a limited federal government is not accurate and does a disservice to them. Some wanted a stronger central government than what we ended up with; some wanted no central government. Some did want another England with a monarch; some were fearful of having anyone be declared a leader of the nation. Some wanted the people to have more power; some feared the people were too unruly and unintelligent to be trusted with power and should therefore have less. There were many many different views and what we ended up with was a document full of compromises.

You keep trying to twist history to fit your political views and it just doesn't work that way

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Exactly. I always hear conservatives these days talk about how we need a smaller federal government. I guess they've forgotten that we already tried that little experiment and it almost destroyed this country before we got started...

In fairness "smaller than now" and "smaller than pre-constitution" are not neccessairily the same thing.

Other than that, I agree with your post completely.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Thank you for proving my point. The whole issue of Marbury v. Madison was to decide this very issue, since, again, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. In fact, one of the arguments that the anti-Federalists made against ratification of the Constitution was the lack of an explicit statement that Judicial Review existed. In fact, Jefferson himself objected to the decision.

You're all over the place on this. On one hand, you make the argument that there are no implied powers in the Constitution and ask us to hold to an austic reading of the Constitution that limits the powers of the Federal gov't only to those explicitly 'delegated' in the text. Since Marbury argued Judicial Review without that 'explicitly delegated' power in the text of Art. III, then your reading would completely undo everything the Supreme Court has done since 1803.

This is the reality of your reading of the 10th Amendment. The Framers did not read it the way you are. The Courts have never read it in the manner in which you are reading it. Exactly why should we take your reading as the proper one, again?

I think my earlier qoute form the constitution iteself shows that the constitution th epower of review to the SCOTUS- it is explicit not implicit.

Exactly. I always hear conservatives these days talk about how we need a smaller federal government. I guess they've forgotten that we already tried that little experiment and it almost destroyed this country before we got started... It quickly became apparent that the federal government needed to be drastically increased in size, scope and power.
Oh, and despite what some of the radio guys will tell you health care reform is not nearly as drastic an expansion of government as the constitution was

Well inthe conservative cirles I associate in we ar etalking to bringing the fed back nearly to what it was prior to FDR. He was the progressives hero for massively expanding the fed. beyond the scope of the constitution.

The thing you need to realize is that these founders and framers of the constitution weren't a cohesive group who all had the same ideals, all thought the same way and all had the same goals for this nation. They were all over the map. There were fierce debates all over the place as to how things should be done. There were duels fought over this stuff. To say they all wanted a limited federal government is not accurate and does a disservice to them. Some wanted a stronger central government than what we ended up with; some wanted no central government. Some did want another England with a monarch; some were fearful of having anyone be declared a leader of the nation. Some wanted the people to have more power; some feared the people were too unruly and unintelligent to be trusted with power and should therefore have less. There were many many different views and what we ended up with was a document full of compromises.

You keep trying to twist history to fit your political views and it just doesn't work that way

Oh I fully know and agree that teh founders weren't all little cherubs who agreed on everything! Tehir infighting would make many people today think that the rancor in Congressnow is pure bipartisanship! But out of all the fighting and warring and debating and compromising- came out that documetn called th eUS Constitution- which we are supposed to be bound to and limited to unless we the people as a nation amend it!