Question for Aaron

On the C-span thread we were in a discussion regarding rebellion. You said that you had swore an oath to defend this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. You said you would not raise a hand against this nation.

I posed a question, that you may have over looked, because of the way my post was written. For that I apologize.

My question simply whose the enemy? Is it the person whose is tired of loosing their liberty and having reward of their labor confiscated by parasites and the politicians who pander to them or is it the parasites and leftists, and politicans who pander to them?

What liberties have you lost?

And while I don't like the way government spends my money, both parties are just as responsible so if you're going to rebel, it's going to have to be against EVERYBODY.

Aaron wrote: What liberties have you lost?

Is not the government defining some speach as "hate speach" a limitation of free speach. Even though the Supreme Court ruled against McCain-Feigold in past few days, was it not a limitation of free speach. What about the 22,000 laws limiting fire arms and their ownership? I certainly don't remember anywhere in the US Constitution a discussion about concealed weapons and a permit. Yet, in West Virginia get caught without a permit and have the weapon where it is concealed and see what happens.

What about, the 4th amendment and search warrents. Your illustrious government can now search your home and your property using a warrent expressed ingeneralities, issued by a court hiden from you. What about the the government taking property without due process. That drug laws allow that. What about the taking of private proeprty by the government and given to another private developer solely for the sake of increasing the tax bases. That was the basis of the Kelo suit that the US Supreme Court ruled was allowable.

I could go on, but I won't. I will remind you that every law the local state and federal baffoons pass become alimit to your liberties.

Aaron wrote: And while I don't like the way government spends my money, both parties are just as responsible so if you're going to rebel, it's going to have to be against EVERYBODY.

Like so many who post here, when you are backed into a corner you come out with an outragious and silly comment. I've read many of your posts and I know that you know better than what you have just posted here. Now, my question remains, whose the enemy?

I don't think we need to rebel against everybody, Aaron. I do think it may come to the point were we need to rebel against the government. Corrupt, power-hungry politicians are not the United States of America, nor are their agents. Rebellion against such a government would not be "raising a hand against our nation", it would be saving her.

I'm not in a corner Cato.

What I am is in the middle of my first semester of college in 25 years, taking 15 hours a week and trying to get back into studying. I’ve spent about 7 hours reading this weekend.

Additionally, I have taxes which are complicated for me this year on top of 3 other projects going and while you may be right in some areas, there are others that you are so far off base it isn't funny. Thing is, I know there's know way of changing your mind no matter how much I prove you wrong and as I have neither the time nor the patience, I'm not going to get into a big conversation regarding any of this.

The one thing I will say is the constitution is not nearly as black and white as you want to make it out to be and many of the issues you stated ARE constitutional in spite of what you think.

And I will give you the courtesy of answering question. If there are enemies of America as you question, I would say that I believe it is the partisans from BOTH sides of the aisle, those who refuse to even consider the other said very well may have a valid point and are insistent that there way is the only way, those who refuse to compromise in any way and considering our constitution was passed on compromise, that too me would be the ones who don’t have America’s best interest at heart. At least that’s the way I see it.

I hope that’s good enough for you.

Cheers.

Aaron wrote:I'm not in a corner Cato.

What I am is in the middle of my first semester of college in 25 years, taking 15 hours a week and trying to get back into studying. I’ve spent about 7 hours reading this weekend.

Additionally, I have taxes which are complicated for me this year on top of 3 other projects going and while you may be right in some areas, there are others that you are so far off base it isn't funny. Thing is, I know there's know way of changing your mind no matter how much I prove you wrong and as I have neither the time nor the patience, I'm not going to get into a big conversation regarding any of this.

The one thing I will say is the constitution is not nearly as black and white as you want to make it out to be and many of the issues you stated ARE constitutional in spite of what you think.

And I will give you the courtesy of answering question. If there are enemies of America as you question, I would say that I believe it is the partisans from BOTH sides of the aisle, those who refuse to even consider the other said very well may have a valid point and are insistent that there way is the only way, those who refuse to compromise in any way and considering our constitution was passed on compromise, that too me would be the ones who don’t have America’s best interest at heart. At least that’s the way I see it.

I hope that’s good enough for you.

Cheers.

First, Good luck with school. I adminre anyone that goes to college later in life, so I wish you only the best.

Secondly, The US Constitution says what it says, so yes it is black and white. The gray come from politicians have corrupted it by putting some very unscrupulous folks on the bench.

Third, I see the enemies of this nation as anyone who seeks to use the force of government to take from one to give to another, be it liberty or the fruit of one's labor. Yes, men and women in both parties are guilty. It is freedom that made this nation great. If we want to continue to be a great nation, then we need to defend our liberties especially, from our homegrown enemies, who act as leaders.

Cato wrote:Secondly, The US Constitution says what it says, so yes it is black and white. The gray come from politicians have corrupted it by putting some very unscrupulous folks on the bench.

Thank you Cato I appreciate it.

And since it's black and white, where is the authorization for the US Air Force?

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:Secondly, The US Constitution says what it says, so yes it is black and white. The gray come from politicians have corrupted it by putting some very unscrupulous folks on the bench.

Thank you Cato I appreciate it.

And since it's black and white, where is the authorization for the US Air Force?

There isn't one. However, I can defend the Air Force's existance as a seperate entity than I can things like the Energy Department, Health And Human Services, Transportation Department, a vast section of the commerce department, and most of the other afterbirths the politicians have blessed us with.

And since it's black and white, where is the authorization for the US Air Force?

THE CONSTITUTION PART XII - MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS
Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"

The Army Air Corps was established as a separate Division of the US Military, ...... along with the Infantry Division, Armored Division, Communication Division, Veterinary Division, etc., ....... when airplanes became a necessity in fighting wars, etc.

The name Army Air Corps was later changed to the US Air Force at the end of WWII.

But you've said Cato that it's all black and white and it's either there or it isn't. Now you’re defending the Air Force, which is one government agency while at the same time criticizing others, including the Department of Commerce which is clearly an enumerated responsibility of the government under the Constitution.

Sam is right on how the Air Force came to fruition but the thing is, the Department of the Army is not listed in ‘black and white’ either. There is no provision for the Department of the Army, which along with the others Sam listed were part of the Department of the Army, not the Military.

While ‘raising and supporting armies’ is listed in Article 1, Section 8, anyone who is a student of colonial times knows how the majority of Americans felt about that subject thus they know that a standing army was NOT the intent of our founding fathers.

Under the guise of ‘its all black and white’, the only branch of the military that can be constitutionally maintained is the Navy and the Marines as they are part of the Department of the Navy.

Aaron wrote:But you've said Cato that it's all black and white and it's either there or it isn't. Now you’re defending the Air Force, which is one government agency while at the same time criticizing others, including the Department of Commerce which is clearly an enumerated responsibility of the government under the Constitution.

Sam is right on how the Air Force came to fruition but the thing is, the Department of the Army is not listed in ‘black and white’ either. There is no provision for the Department of the Army, which along with the others Sam listed were part of the Department of the Army, not the Military.

While ‘raising and supporting armies’ is listed in Article 1, Section 8, anyone who is a student of colonial times knows how the majority of Americans felt about that subject thus they know that a standing army was NOT the intent of our founding fathers.

Under the guise of ‘its all black and white’, the only branch of the military that can be constitutionally maintained is the Navy and the Marines as they are part of the Department of the Navy.

Then what we have is a question of names and authority not of unconstitutionality. If the Air Force can't stand alone, it can stand as part of the navy and/or army. As far as the Commerce department goes, Congress does have some authority over interstate commerce in so far as the US Constitution allows, which was my only point witht he comment I made. However, it still remains that the vast majority of what we see in Federal Gvoernment has no Constitutional merit.

Congress has control over ALL commerce nationally.

Article 1 Section 8 Subsection 3 states...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

When coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, there is very little that does not meet that criterion.

Furthermore, you have no problem placing the Air Force under the Navy as it is listed but you see the Department of Transportation as unconstitutional even though it has a profound effect on interstate commerce.


Somehow that logic doesn't seem fitting.

Aaron wrote:Congress has control over ALL commerce nationally.

Article 1 Section 8 Subsection 3 states...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

When coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, there is very little that does not meet that criterion.

Furthermore, you have no problem placing the Air Force under the Navy as it is listed but you see the Department of Transportation as unconstitutional even though it has a profound effect on interstate commerce.


Somehow that logic doesn't seem fitting.

I have no problem leaving the Air Force where it is, if you want to know the truth. My statement ws simply that if the Air Force stands alone and that creates a constitutional problem then put them, along with the Marines, and Coast Guard under either the Army or Navy.

Congress's authority to regulate commerce was intended to go no further than to prevent one state from tariffs on goods from another state. It was not to limit what could and couldn't be sold over state lines or to control comerce between the states. Commerce was to be free and open. You cannot tell me this authoritarian mess that we see today is what was intended or is good for commerce.

Cato wrote:
I have no problem leaving the Air Force where it is, if you want to know the truth. My statement ws simply that if the Air Force stands alone and that creates a constitutional problem then put them, along with the Marines, and Coast Guard under either the Army or Navy.

Congress's authority to regulate commerce was intended to go no further than to prevent one state from tariffs on goods from another state. It was not to limit what could and couldn't be sold over state lines or to control comerce between the states. Commerce was to be free and open. You cannot tell me this authoritarian mess that we see today is what was intended or is good for commerce.

So you have no problem with an agency that wasn't even mentioned but you want to put strict limitations on one what was. Why?

As it's 'black and white' you shouldn't have any problem answering that question including who placed the limitations you claim above because I don't see any of those limitations WORDED IN the Constitution.

Aaron wrote:Congress has control over ALL commerce nationally.

Article 1 Section 8 Subsection 3 states...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

When coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, there is very little that does not meet that criterion.

Furthermore, you see the Department of Transportation as unconstitutional even though it has a profound effect on interstate commerce.

Somehow that logic doesn't seem fitting.

Commerce means (To regulate) trade, traffic, transportation, or other commerce: (1) Between a place in a State and any place outside of such State, including any foreign country, or between points within the same State but through any place outside thereof, or within any territory, possession, or the District of Columbia;

Commerce, (transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities (goods and services)

Department of Commerce, Commerce Department, Commerce, DoC (the United States federal department that promotes and administers domestic and foreign trade (including management of the census and the patent office); created in 1913)

So the question: Is the Federal Government and/or the DOT, etc., regulating commerce or is it dictating and controlling commerce?


.

While that's a good point Sam, it's not the question. Cato has a problem with the constitutionality of both but he's yet to explain why other then his opinion.

Aaron wrote:

So you have no problem with an agency that wasn't even mentioned but you want to put strict limitations on one what was. Why?

As it's 'black and white' you shouldn't have any problem answering that question including who placed the limitations you claim above because I don't see any of those limitations WORDED IN the Constitution.

The Air Force is part of defence and I can live with that, since defence is a legitimate purpose of the government per the US Constitution. The only catch I see is the Air Force standing alone. If that is a problem then place it back under the jusidiction of the Army.

The commerce and tranportation department regulate where they were never intended to regulate. The way I understand the original intent in Constitutionally, regulating commerce between the state meant keepiong one state from imposing tarriffs on items produced in another state. The rub is that regulation has went fromt he original intent to controlling and transportation.

The seatbelt law is one good example. That is an issue for the states under the 10th amendment, yet the federal government used the Transportation depart and its doling out of funding to require state to enact seatbelt laws. This type of control was never the intent of the founders.

Yup, I would say that "regulating people" or "regulating vehicle wrecks" is not regulating commerce.

The ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when the debate over how much control the federal government had over commerce.

The bottom line is though that along with how to pay for national defense are the two primary reasons the Constitution even came to being as those are the two issues the Articles of Confederation failed to adequately address.

One other thing that isn't debatable is if interstate trade was a goal and considering James Madison stated in an 1828 letter "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade'.

As for transportation, that goes back to the Interstate Commerce Clause act of 1887 signed into law by Grover Cleveland in and was used to regulate the transportation industry, specifically railroads and rates meant to address discrimination and rate gouging. It was challenged and found constitutional as discriminating via the transportation went against the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. I personally think that was a proper decision.

The next law was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which broke up monopolies and I also think this was a good law.

While you may not like how much the government controls today and I agree, there are instances they go too far, you can't argue that commerce (and transportation) are outside the federal government’s purview.

I will say that after decades of expanding the governments reach we've seen two recent Supreme Court decisions which have restricted the arm of the federal government. The recent case involving corporations and money and the Lopez gun case have both restricted the reach of Congress and in my opinion, are just the beginning. GWB may have a lasting positive legacy after all in his two Supreme Court nominees.

I am not the constitutional scholar you are. I have read it and I take it at face value. I have also read the Federalist and anti federalist writings and some of Elliot's Debates. I place absolutely no value on so called experts and what they have to say. I beleive we spend far too much time worrying about what the experts say and not enough thinking for ourselves.

That being said, I will not argue the point that the way the US Constitution is written leads one to believe congress has the authority to regulate commerce and transportation in the manner that it does today. Yes, I agree that arguement can be made that it does. However, from other writings, especially the Federalist papers, what we see today was never the founders intent, that I believe with all my heart and being.

I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar Cato. Like you, I've read historical papers and that is what I place a great deal of my decisions on.

I do however use some common sense in reaching my decisions. I don't think our founders would have had a problem with either the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Interstate Commerace Clause and both do meet Constitutional requirements.

I also understand how the Supreme Court works with lifetime appointments and justices and I trace the vast majority of expansion back to the appointments of the Supreme Court justices dating back to the 30's and 40's. FDR appointed 8 Justices, the last of which retired in 1975. Truman appointed 4 Justices, Ike 5, and Kennedy and Johnson 2 each.

And all this goes to prove is that the Constitution is not as black and white as you would like to believe it is.

Actually, what it proves is two things. First, as I think Hamilton said, "the dead should not govern the living". What was necessary in 1791 may not fit today's world.

Secondly, it doesn't mankind all that long to corrupt or pervert anything, as you pointed out talking about FDR.

Actually, a third thing is also pointed out, liberty exists outside of a peice of paper. The writing only codifies a manner in which we decide to defend and protect our liberty and rights. The writers of the Declaration of Independance stated as much.

Finally, I enjoy this type of conversation. It helps me shape both my views and arguements.

Cato

I have no problem leaving the Air Force where it is, if you want to know the truth. My statement ws simply that if the Air Force stands alone and that creates a constitutional problem then put them, along with the Marines, and Coast Guard under either the Army or Navy.

Congress's authority to regulate commerce was intended to go no further than to prevent one state from tariffs on goods from another state. It was not to limit what could and couldn't be sold over state lines or to control comerce between the states. Commerce was to be free and open. You cannot tell me this authoritarian mess that we see today is what was intended or is good for commerce.

You bemoan those who use words to make the Constitution say something you disagree with. Yet when it suites your agenda, you can parse words with the best of them.

ziggy wrote:

I have no problem leaving the Air Force where it is, if you want to know the truth. My statement ws simply that if the Air Force stands alone and that creates a constitutional problem then put them, along with the Marines, and Coast Guard under either the Army or Navy.

Congress's authority to regulate commerce was intended to go no further than to prevent one state from tariffs on goods from another state. It was not to limit what could and couldn't be sold over state lines or to control comerce between the states. Commerce was to be free and open. You cannot tell me this authoritarian mess that we see today is what was intended or is good for commerce.

You bemoan those who use words to make the Constitution say something you disagree with. Yet when it suites your agenda, you can parse words with the best of them.

I bemoan the times when people twist the US Constitution to say what it doesn't so they can advance their agenda. The environmental movement along along with the entitlement programs come to mind in that regard. However, one of the duties of congress is to provide for the defence. Now I know you hate the military, but the Air Force is a necessary part of the national defence.

I bemoan the times when people twist the US Constitution to say what it doesn't so they can advance their agenda. The environmental movement along along with the entitlement programs come to mind in that regard. However, one of the duties of congress is to provide for the defence. Now I know you hate the military, but the Air Force is a necessary part of the national defence.

I do not hate the military, and you cannot provide evidence to support your assertion that I do.

But just as crazed environmentalists can and do sometimes do more harm than good with their agendas, crazed commanders of the military can and sometimes do more harm than good with their agendas. That does not mean that either environmentalists or military commanders are inherently evil- only that, when misguided, either can do more harm than good.