Re: Palin is a birther...

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:18 pm

Aaron wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:I would never pretend Aaron to know what those who argued the two cases you mentioned were thinking at the time. Why did they ignore the hotel case? Did they believe it was not applicable, or did they overlook it for some reason? I don't know the answer to that. Do you for certain? Do you have information on that subject? If so please share it. I merely stated that perhaps if it had been applied the other two might not have fallen. Then again they might have.

They didn't ignore it, they didn't overlook it and they didn't foul up. The case was not applicable and it doesn't take a Supreme Court Justice to figure that out.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:"Court packing" was as you say a threat which was never followed through. Do you agree with the idea that a Supreme Court Justice bound by his oath, should reach an opinion with which he is in disagreement because he fears that his influence will be diminished if additional justices are appointed? I say that such a concession renders him a coward. What say you Aaron? He then says later on that he decided said decisions under duress. Is that just another capitulation of timely expediency, making him twice a coward?

I agree he was a coward, failed his oath of office and should have been removed from the court. But it wasn't just one bill or one threat. Between 1935 and 1937, over 40 bills were intorduced into legislation calling for some form of restraint or another on the Supreme Court. Additionally, FDR personally called Roberts and Cheif Justice Charles Hughs and expressed his 'concern' over New Deal legislation being declared unconstitutional.

Nothing changed but Roberts decision to anyone with the common sense to and ability to do a little research to see that our founding fathers had no intention of authorizing Congress to spend on social programs. And that's just not my opinion, it's shared by James Madison. If you read federalist 41 and 42, it goes into detail describing spending specifically allowed by the Constitution.

It's not about opinions or what you think, it's all in black and white and if anyone desires a change, there is even a method for doing that. And you STILL haven't quoted the correct case for your argument.

In regards to your assertion that the court clearly held the position that spending on social programs was unconstitutional before the New Deal in 1937 I challenge. From the following-

Dauber

However the reality is very nearly the opposite, beginning with Reality Company decided in 1896, the Supreme Court on several occasions BEFORE 1937 indicated that Congressional spending was for all practicable purposes, unreviewable. In fact, the Court has never invalidated a Congressional appropriation because it exceeded the scope of the General Welfare Clause.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:11 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:In regards to your assertion that the court clearly held the position that spending on social programs was unconstitutional before the New Deal in 1937 I challenge. From the following-

You'll have to show me where I asserted that, if you can. We were discussing the constitutionality of New Deal programs and I was showing you where you were wrong. No one brought up pre-New Deal social programs and no one said they were blanket unconstitutional. Perhaps you should stick to what is being discussed instead of wondering off on other topics.

I will take some time this evening to not only read over your link also read over what the opinion was in response to and give you my thoughts on that although I must say that considering your arguments thus far, I'm not holding my breath on any relevance to the conversation.

Just out of curiosity though, I do have a question. I'm wondering if you have the ability to come to a conclusion on your own or is all you can do post links as a response? It appears you're taking the conversation, asking a search engine a question and posting the response that best fits your argument. And while I do enjoy reading much of the material, I know how to search on my own as I do it as a mechanism to SUPPORT my opinion.

Regarding right and wrong and legal and illegal, we live under a nation of laws and it seems to me that problems start when people start trying to impose their definition of what is right or wrong on others and I don’t think that’s a good idea. I would prefer to stick to following the rule of law. At least then, I have some idea where the line is and I’m not depending on someone else to show me their line.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:28 pm

Aaron wrote:I don't suppose you've ever heard of the court packing bill, have you AC?

You can start by reading this or this. And bear in mind that Mr. Justice Roberts, who delivered the majority opinion in the case you quote stated in 1951 that the one mistake he made in his long and illustrious career was caving to FDR and Democrats when they threatened to ram legislation through and nullifying the court of it's constitutional power.

From there, you can do some research on the term 'welfare' and what it meant in the time the Constitution was ratified by the citizens of the United States of America.

And finally, take a look at the words of the FATHER of the Constitution who said...

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

The constitution does not specifically authorize Congress to spend on social programs, there was no precedent and as such, were it not for FDR blackmailing the court, Social Security would have met the same fate as The Railroad Retirement Act and the National Recovery Act.

And finally, the case you quoted in no way has anything to do with social security or social programs. You cited a case regarding the government’s authority to dictate prices for milk and falls under the general purview of the interstate commerce clause, not the general welfare clause. Additionally, in your case, there are several references to precedent set by previous laws and government control. You quoted the WRONG case for your argument.

Is this seriously all you have? And here I had hoped we had found a formidable liberal but it appears I was wrong.

You don't use the word blanket, but you take your argument clearly in this posting back to the ratification of the Constitution and use it as a buttress for your argument that it was the New Deal that brought about Social Program expenditures. You state above that "there was no precedent" which my source clearly challenges. The distinction for blanket however Aaron is a petty contrivance. I see you quoting sources in favor of your position and I am doing the same. Disparaging me doesn't make you right. Disparagement also typically means that the disparager knows that their argument is weak.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:28 pm

I'm not disparging you, I'm merely stating facts based on your post.

And had you bothered reading this, you would know the words are those of James Madison, Father of the Constitution. Given the choice of his view or the opinion of someone you Googled, I do believe I'll take his every time thank you very much.

As I said, I'll get around to reading your links but I doubt I'll find a precedent to the 'old age and unemployment act' that FDR signed into law on August 14, 1935.

And you STILL haven't quoted the right case. Perhaps you should go to the 2nd google page because you're not finding it.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:41 pm

Actually I think my links are pretty valid, but you can believe they are not if you want that's your choice. My idea of factual and yours might be different.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:45 pm

I'm STILL waiting on the correct court case.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:00 pm

Aaron wrote:I'm STILL waiting on the correct court case.

Actually I am pleased with what I have quoted so far regardless of your opinion. You brought up the I take my Madison source over your source so lets make this a battle of the heavyweights.Hamilton

In his letter "Report on Manufactures" published December 5, 1791 he asserts:

After the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton wrote a letter asserting that the phrase "general Welfare" was "as comprehensive as an that could have been used" and "embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition."

Eventually the dispute between Madison and Hamilton brought about the formation of the first two political parties. It all depends on whose viewpoint you prefer. I prefer Hamilton's and you Madison's.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:04 pm

I read your link which is nothing more then an article by a Yale professor in which she is trying to disprove a USC Chair's belief that FDR's New Deal lawyers had no precednet for New Deal legislation.

I read her brief, looked at the cited cases by both her and the USC Chair and went back and read her brief again. I can make very little sense out of it or the case she cited (which was hard enough to find) and how it supplied precedent for New Deal lawyers. The impression I got was this was an article by someone how had a theory and went out searching for some sort of court case to back it up.

If you believe she was successful, perhaps you can explain it to me because I don’t see it. I’ll await your response.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:15 pm

Aaron wrote:I read your link which is nothing more then an article by a Yale professor in which she is trying to disprove a USC Chair's belief that FDR's New Deal lawyers had no precednet for New Deal legislation.

I read her brief, looked at the cited cases by both her and the USC Chair and went back and read her brief again. I can make very little sense out of it or the case she cited (which was hard enough to find) and how it supplied precedent for New Deal lawyers. The impression I got was this was an article by someone how had a theory and went out searching for some sort of court case to back it up.

If you believe she was successful, perhaps you can explain it to me because I don’t see it. I’ll await your response.

Exactly what did you not understand? I will gladly explain as best as possible.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Eventually the dispute between Madison and Hamilton brought about the formation of the first two political parties. It all depends on whose viewpoint you prefer. I prefer Hamilton's and you Madison's.

Considering the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention aka The Constitutional Convention heard Hamilton's view and although they said it was well thought out, it received virtually NO support and was voted down in favor of the Virginia (Madison's) plan.

And his party, the Federalist, created 1792 had about a 12 year run of power who's most notable election gave the Presidency to the opposing party and was eventually absolved in 1820. About the only thing that came from it was the 12th Amendment.

I'm confident that the majority of Americans, those who directly voted for the United States Constitution during the ratification process favored Madison’s viewpoint as well as it led to what we call the United States Constitution.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Exactly what did you not understand? I will gladly explain as best as possible.

Start from the beginning and explain how Dauber's opinion gives credence to your argument.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:42 pm

Aaron wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:Exactly what did you not understand? I will gladly explain as best as possible.

Start from the beginning and explain how Dauber's opinion gives credence to your argument.

I thought that there was something that you didn't understand. Tell me do you ever defend your viewpoint? On what grounds do you reject Dauber?

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:48 pm

Aaron wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:Eventually the dispute between Madison and Hamilton brought about the formation of the first two political parties. It all depends on whose viewpoint you prefer. I prefer Hamilton's and you Madison's.

Considering the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention aka The Constitutional Convention heard Hamilton's view and although they said it was well thought out, it received virtually NO support and was voted down in favor of the Virginia (Madison's) plan.

And his party, the Federalist, created 1792 had about a 12 year run of power who's most notable election gave the Presidency to the opposing party and was eventually absolved in 1820. About the only thing that came from it was the 12th Amendment.

I'm confident that the majority of Americans, those who directly voted for the United States Constitution during the ratification process favored Madison’s viewpoint as well as it led to what we call the United States Constitution.

I am going to do a bit more research on the Hamilton material before I give my opinion on this post. From the link I listed it stated that the argument raged far beyond ratification which would mean that the majority were not in concurrance and a considerable split remained. I also take note that if there was such an overwhelming majority opposition to the interpretation of what "General Welfare" would be, then why was it not excluded from the Constitution altogether? Seems to me its inclusion suggests that it was the Hamilton side of the argument that prevailed. Otherwise the Federalist Papers would be the document our nation enshrines as its highest law not the U.S. Constitution.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:51 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
I thought that there was something that you didn't understand. Tell me do you ever defend your viewpoint? On what grounds do you reject Dauber?

Her claims. They make no sense. You said you could explain them so start explaining them.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:02 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:=I also take note that if there was such an overwhelming majority opposition to the interpretation of what "General Welfare" would be, then why was it not excluded from the Constitution altogether? Seems to me its inclusion suggests that it was the Hamilton side of the argument that prevailed. Otherwise the Federalist Papers would be the document our nation enshrines as its highest law not the U.S. Constitution.

You would be wrong.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The original version did not include the phase I have highlighted in bold. When it went to what basically amounted a sub committee to work on wording, the 4 delegates (2 from VA-Blair and McClurg and 2 from PA-Morris and I'm not sure of the other one) put the wording in there to describe WHY they were giving the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises as they had just fought a war over that very issue.

by Andrea Cristobal Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:24 pm

Aaron wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:
I thought that there was something that you didn't understand. Tell me do you ever defend your viewpoint? On what grounds do you reject Dauber?

Her claims. They make no sense. You said you could explain them so start explaining them.

I believe Aaron what I see happening is a ploy. It is a common practice on political forums. One poster persistantly demands that a second poster explain there view, sources, and so on while avoiding explaining there own. There are other ploys as well such as disparaging the other person, questioning the legitimacy of sources etc and so on. I see a lot of what is your beliefs and opinions but not the sources.

On your latter post from 5:02 pm I once again see opinion but not a scholarly source to back it up. How do I know that they are only stating why they collect taxes? Because that is your opinion? that is not enough I am afraid. You did not live back then. What source tells you that was the reasoning?
To me sources are important. We can guess at a past person's intent but it is only a guess unless they or someone else has clearly documented it somewhere. Or the overwhelming written opinions of the time state that person's intent with certainty.

by Aaron Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:10 pm

I'll find the source for the sub-committee explanation when I have some time to look. I can't remember if it was on constitution.org or another site or if I heard it on The History Channel but I know that is what happened. Until then, if you wish to remain skeptical, I’ll understand.

Regarding your comments though, I'm sorry to say, you’re wrong. I haven't demanded anything from you. I ask how you reconciled government mandated health insurance constitutionally and you started out by posting a case with ZERO relevance to the topic. From there you've posted an article that makes no sense and too me it appears you're lost and grasping at straws in the form of Googling my comment for your next response, thus your random post.

In all honestly I think you don't have the answers, that your opinion is based on the "richest country in the world should provide health care" that so many on the left enjoy championing and your theory sounds more like an easy way for you to avoid answering the question put forth to you.

Considering you said you could explain what I didn't understand and I explained what it is I'm confused with, could you please explain what Dauber meant?

by Andrea Cristobal Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:29 am

Aaron wrote:I'll find the source for the sub-committee explanation when I have some time to look. I can't remember if it was on constitution.org or another site or if I heard it on The History Channel but I know that is what happened. Until then, if you wish to remain skeptical, I’ll understand.

Regarding your comments though, I'm sorry to say, you’re wrong. I haven't demanded anything from you. I ask how you reconciled government mandated health insurance constitutionally and you started out by posting a case with ZERO relevance to the topic. From there you've posted an article that makes no sense and too me it appears you're lost and grasping at straws in the form of Googling my comment for your next response, thus your random post.

In all honestly I think you don't have the answers, that your opinion is based on the "richest country in the world should provide health care" that so many on the left enjoy championing and your theory sounds more like an easy way for you to avoid answering the question put forth to you.

Considering you said you could explain what I didn't understand and I explained what it is I'm confused with, could you please explain what Dauber meant?

No, I am not lost. Firstly Ms. Dauber is disputing the writings of a constitutional scholar named Howard Gillman. Howard You might find him interesting to contact with your shared constitutional views. His e-mail and telephone number are listed.

I utilized this article as it coincided with your posting regarding the New Deal and 'the court packing case.' Here Ms. Dauber clearly disputes the Gillman/Aaron contention that before the New Deal the court placed strict limits on such spending under constitutional restraint. She lists cases that go far back into the the 1800 regarding congressional spending and the fact that no Supreme Court in our history has ever overturned a congressional appropriation.

This article disputes your contentions. Also in the spirit of equal disclosure of sources this is Ms. Dauber's bio. Michele First we had James and Alex. Now we have Howard and Michele. Let the dueling banjos continue.

by **SheikBen** Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:00 am

Aaron wrote:
SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, AC, I read your tagline as "right and wrong" being more important than "right vs. left," and I surely concur.

I would add, however, that "right and wrong" are more important than "legal and illegal" or even "constitutional or unconstitutional."

This question is for both or you.

Who decides right and wrong?

Great question, and the final answer is God.

While I prefer a stricter reading of the Constitution than do liberal jurists, I do not think it should be the final arbiter of values or "right vs. wrong." I see a very real danger in the government filling the role that God alone should fill.

by Aaron Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:07 am

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Here Ms. Dauber clearly disputes the Gillman/Aaron contention that before the New Deal the court placed strict limits on such spending under constitutional restraint.

Funny thing is, I've never said that. I've never implied it. In fact, that's a topic I can honestly say I've never really considered so yeah, you're wrong. I'm starting to wonder if you’re even having the same conversation I am. Perhaps if you could find your way around this conversation, that might be an interesting one to have.

And for the record, Dauber's argument wasn’t that Congress restricted spending under constitutional restraint, it was that Congress possessed the authority to spend as they chose under the general Welfare clause because precedent had been set. She cited disaster spending and payments to sugar growers as said precedent and her smoking gun proof was the fact that the Supreme Court had never overturned a Congressional Appropriations Bill.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Let the dueling banjos continue.

It seems your banjo is badly off key and missing 2 strings. And here I had high hopes when this conversation started out.

by **SheikBen** Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:09 pm

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
Aaron wrote:
SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, AC, I read your tagline as "right and wrong" being more important than "right vs. left," and I surely concur.

I would add, however, that "right and wrong" are more important than "legal and illegal" or even "constitutional or unconstitutional."

This question is for both or you.

Who decides right and wrong?

I believe that for the most part individuals decide what is right or wrong. But the government also has a vested interest in deciding what is right or wrong. That is the whole purpose to having a criminal code of justice. If to a certain extent government could not decide right or wrong, anarchy would be the result. Sometimes religious faiths decide what is right and wrong. Their view is then given to the adherants of that faith. Right and wrong has layers at times. One pertains to how you live your life, the second is how you reside in society and the third to how you practice spiritual principles. The three often but not always intertwine.

The matter is a complicated one. I do not think that "right" and "wrong" should be synonymous with "legal" and "illegal." I do not think that lying and coveting should be illegal necessarily, even though they are wrong.

However, I do believe that right and wrong are of great importance, and even final importance, and that it is not for man to decide what he happens to like as being "right" and what he happens to dislike as being "wrong." Right and wrong exist outside of our own preferences.

My fear with the government taking the role of arbiter of right and wrong is that it is unable to give good reasons for people to obey, outside of the use of force. From a strictly pragmatic position, religion provides an internal policing that the government cannot provide. What faith in God does for people's behavior cannot be aped by government save through the use of coercive force.

I am convinced that as the United States society loses its reliance upon God, it will further devolve into greater social problems that will lead to greater control of the government over the lives of everyday people.

by Andrea Cristobal Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:50 pm

Actually Aaron I think it is your banjo that requires the fine tuning. I have not found any of your arguments to be particularly succinct. It is the same argument I have seen numerous 'constitutional literalists' present and there is nothing interesting about it. A hundred years from now no matter how many 'general welfare clause' cases have been upheld as they will be, the literalists will still be arguing the same tired argument. No matter how many SCOTUS decisions are made contrary to their view the same argument will be presented.

by Andrea Cristobal Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:54 pm

SheikBen wrote:
Andrea Cristobal wrote:
Aaron wrote:
SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, AC, I read your tagline as "right and wrong" being more important than "right vs. left," and I surely concur.

I would add, however, that "right and wrong" are more important than "legal and illegal" or even "constitutional or unconstitutional."

This question is for both or you.

Who decides right and wrong?

I believe that for the most part individuals decide what is right or wrong. But the government also has a vested interest in deciding what is right or wrong. That is the whole purpose to having a criminal code of justice. If to a certain extent government could not decide right or wrong, anarchy would be the result. Sometimes religious faiths decide what is right and wrong. Their view is then given to the adherants of that faith. Right and wrong has layers at times. One pertains to how you live your life, the second is how you reside in society and the third to how you practice spiritual principles. The three often but not always intertwine.

The matter is a complicated one. I do not think that "right" and "wrong" should be synonymous with "legal" and "illegal." I do not think that lying and coveting should be illegal necessarily, even though they are wrong.

However, I do believe that right and wrong are of great importance, and even final importance, and that it is not for man to decide what he happens to like as being "right" and what he happens to dislike as being "wrong." Right and wrong exist outside of our own preferences.

My fear with the government taking the role of arbiter of right and wrong is that it is unable to give good reasons for people to obey, outside of the use of force. From a strictly pragmatic position, religion provides an internal policing that the government cannot provide. What faith in God does for people's behavior cannot be aped by government save through the use of coercive force.

I am convinced that as the United States society loses its reliance upon God, it will further devolve into greater social problems that will lead to greater control of the government over the lives of everyday people.

I agree with you Michael. (My first name is Andrea. It is the surname that I created.) As a practicing Roman Catholic I have some ideas that my more liberal female friends might not like. Such as I am pro-life. But yet I am not really opposed to gay people having rights. I believe that compassion should be a primary consideration in many things.

by Aaron Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:55 pm

Were you able to cite the correct court case to support your argument Andrea, you might have a smidgen of credibility. As you can't, you have none.

In fact, not only can you not cite the correct court case, your two subsequent posts that you've used to support your argument have been totally off base. You were wrong on both Dauber and Hamilton.

While Hamilton did favor more centralized power and freedom in spending by Congress then Madison, he believed that such spending must "benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other."

Entitlement spending does not promote 'general' spending, assist 'national' needs and certainly favors specific sections, including segments of society over others.

The only thing I'm left wondering is where the next straw you're grasping at will come from.

by **SheikBen** Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:57 pm

As far as the gay thing goes, I am still far from convinced that the government should define marriage, period. My marriage is a sacred institution and I didn't want then (nor do I want now) the government's sanction or input. As long as Christian churches that do not believe in homosexual activity being moral (such as our own) are not compelled to sanction unions of which they disapprove of, I do not care one way or the other what liberal churches do. Surely I reject much of their theology, but I do not begrudge them the right to have it and practice it as they see fit.

What bothers me about the gay rights crowd is that they want to keep the definition of marriage restrictive, they just want in on the restrictive definition. I see an element of hypocrisy here.

As far as ceremonies go, the liberal United church of Christ has been doing gay "wedings" for years, and a couple that feels the need for government sanction is not worthy of it, frankly, regardless of what gender they choose to have sex with.

by Sponsored content