Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › The Powers of Congress.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Powers of Congress. (Read 12,898 times)
Shooterman
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Dum spiro pugno

Posts: 9,972
Joined: 03/01/11
Gender: Male
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #30 - 04/29/12 at 19:44:59
Print Post  
duster wrote on 04/29/12 at 15:57:31:
Shooter,  
If they ever decide to write a new constitution, you and I need to be on that committee.


I'm afraid, Duster, we'd be hung for our beliefs. Grin
  

Our Bill of Rights constitutes a cluster of little foxholes of liberty ground into the hard cold face of history by helpless men for a shield against the lash of tyrants. They are the result of distrust of power and distrust of men in power. They are a recognition of Lord Acton's statement of a truth eternal--"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."R. CARTER PITTMAN&&Dalton, Ga., Sept. 28, 1955.DRAFT JAN MORGAN FOR PRESIDENT!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
duster
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Thanks Cavvet, cool sig
banner

Posts: 5,700
Location: South Dakota
Joined: 11/06/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #31 - 04/29/12 at 21:10:07
Print Post  
Shooterman wrote on 04/29/12 at 19:44:59:
I'm afraid, Duster, we'd be hung for our beliefs. Grin

You're probably right.  Kinda' like the founders discussed amongst themselves.
  

Intellectual: Uses more words than necessary to tell you more than he knows
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
this dude abides
Ex Member


Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #32 - 04/29/12 at 22:29:18
Print Post  
Shooterman wrote on 04/29/12 at 16:38:59:
Apology accepted.


The Constitution does no such thing. The Constitution, as the legally binding Compact between the states, each having met in convention and ratified the said Constitution, and thereby entering into an agreement with the other states, enumerates powers and duties the Congress has. Outside of those constitutional enumerations, ( which, BTW, everyone at the time of the Constitutional Convention understood could be withdrawn from ) the Congress has no powers and certainly no rights, as government has not one scintilla of a right to do anything.


Well, Young Grasshopper, like it or not, the Constitution also enumerates ( grants ) certain duties and powers unto the President. If he oversteps those boundaries, he is a criminal, should be removed, tried, and if convicted, at least sent to jail if not hung for treason.


Please Dude, don't go into law. The Constitution sets no guidelines; it directly enumerates duties and powers. Most are declaratory and restrictive; i.e. they specifically outline duties and/or powers, or declare duties and/or powers where the Congress has absolutely no jurisdiction. This also applies to the duties of the President, the SCOTUS, and the Fourth Branch of a republican government, the states. The States and/or the people are enumerated to possess ALL powers not given unto the Congress or government, if you prefer


All rights and freedoms of the people, and has absolutely nothing to do with the government, except to restrict the government from encroaching on the rights and freedoms of the people.


Simply not so. Read the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments.


Dude, Dude, Dude. Blacks were given their freedom by the Thirteenth Amendment. Civil Right laws were unconstitutional. Brown vs Board of Ed was based on 'modern authority', ( hello, here we go again ) women were given suffrage by the Nineteenth Amendment.

The Federal Government has an obligation, not a right to obtain a warrant. Obligation, Dude, obligation. Any agent breaking the law by writing his own warrants should go to prison. It is that simple.

Develop a teachable spirit, Dude, else you'll become just another shyster. Better yet, shovel crap for a living. Basically shysters do that.

I am not being unkind about that as I've even done some of it. Smiley

As I use to tell folks, it may be crap to you, but it is my bread and butter. Smiley  


First of all, the U.S. Constitution does give congress the power of the purse, to declare war, etc. It also talks about a separation of powers and the rights of states. I know this because I've studied and read this.

Secondly, the constitution does protect people from government, you and I agree on that.

The 13th amendment gave blacks freedom, but not the same rights as whites. The civil rights act of 1964 re-enforced what the forefathers had envisioned. Women were given the right to vote in 1920, but it was not until 1964 that they gained rights in other areas such as employment.

Again, I made a mistake with regards to the USAPatriot Act. Individual agents are not allowed to write warrants, but any district judge is.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nyte_Byrd
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Talk Is Cheep

Posts: 67,882
Joined: 05/09/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #33 - 04/29/12 at 22:36:56
Print Post  
duster wrote on 04/29/12 at 21:10:07:
You're probably right.  Kinda' like the founders discussed amongst themselves.


Don't worry, Duster.

I offered Shooter the nomination for President....and he spurned me, too.   Grin
  


If You're Here To Teach, Then You've Much To Learn
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cj_real_american
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Smitty Kitty is my boss.

Posts: 90,051
Joined: 06/01/06
Gender: Female
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #34 - 04/29/12 at 22:40:18
Print Post  
Nyte_Byrd wrote on 04/29/12 at 22:36:56:
Don't worry, Duster.

I offered Shooter the nomination for President....and he spurned me, too.   Grin


I would  vote for Duster, what the hay, I like to travel and spend money.   Grin Grin  Ohhhh, I like the sounds of First Lady CJ.  But I will never forget you little people.  Kiss   Grin
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Centinel
Ex Member


Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #35 - 04/29/12 at 22:49:10
Print Post  
1goofball wrote on 04/27/12 at 18:33:49:
I need some definitions.

It says,
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

That reads to me that you can't use taxpayer money to fund a war lasting longer than 2 years?  What does it mean?


No, it means that we cannot allocate money to be used more than two years down the road.  Any war lasting longer than two years will simply require multiple budgets.  Afghanistan, the longest war in our country's history, should have had a minimum of 5 (or is it 6 depending on the exact dates) budgets.  Not sure if we still follow the practice.

The idea, to my knowledge, was to minimize the size of our armed forces.  But of course, back then, they also planned on being a neutral party to the affairs of the world.  There was no need for a large defense budget.

It was hard for the federal government to scrounge up resources for new spending in the old days.  It wasn't something done lightly, as we were a meager little country riddled with debt and experimenting with this radical new republican government.

We had few enemies back in the day, so the need for large standing armies was small, and 2 year budgets helped keep it that way.  When the time came for a larger army to be fielded, it could be done.  And when the danger subsided, so did the military budget.  When we exited the fielded of neutrality, it changed the game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #36 - 05/01/12 at 06:59:08
Print Post  
Since we know that language changes with time, words used by the Founders sometimes must be interpreted.  We must know what they meant at the time in order to understand their application, today.
That is a necessary and understandable function of SCOTUS.

Also, great changes in technology, demographics and population pressures present their own challenges to our continued use of the Constitution as our guide.  This, also, falls within the purview of SCOTUS.

The challenge to SCOTUS, one which they sometimes fail to meet, is to tell the difference and to refrain from amending by interpretation.  Just as a regulation may have the same effect as a law, an interpretation may be as binding and as far reaching as an amendment to the Constitution.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shooterman
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Dum spiro pugno

Posts: 9,972
Joined: 03/01/11
Gender: Male
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #37 - 05/01/12 at 10:05:24
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 05/01/12 at 06:59:08:
Since we know that language changes with time, words used by the Founders sometimes must be interpreted.  We must know what they meant at the time in order to understand their application, today.
That is a necessary and understandable function of SCOTUS.

Also, great changes in technology, demographics and population pressures present their own challenges to our continued use of the Constitution as our guide.  This, also, falls within the purview of SCOTUS.

The challenge to SCOTUS, one which they sometimes fail to meet, is to tell the difference and to refrain from amending by interpretation.  Just as a regulation may have the same effect as a law, an interpretation may be as binding and as far reaching as an amendment to the Constitution.


The decision, of course, in a case, was intended by the Founders to only be binding in that case. It was never intended to be the Law of the Land, merely the Law of the Case.

See the Law of The Land by R Carter Pittman

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/judiciary/Law_of_the_Land.html
  

Our Bill of Rights constitutes a cluster of little foxholes of liberty ground into the hard cold face of history by helpless men for a shield against the lash of tyrants. They are the result of distrust of power and distrust of men in power. They are a recognition of Lord Acton's statement of a truth eternal--"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."R. CARTER PITTMAN&&Dalton, Ga., Sept. 28, 1955.DRAFT JAN MORGAN FOR PRESIDENT!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #38 - 05/01/12 at 16:49:50
Print Post  
Shooterman wrote on 05/01/12 at 10:05:24:
The decision, of course, in a case, was intended by the Founders to only be binding in that case. It was never intended to be the Law of the Land, merely the Law of the Case.

See the Law of The Land by R Carter Pittman

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/judiciary/Law_of_the_Land.html


Thanks, Shooterman.  I, like the average layman, threading my way through this labyrinth of legal hedges, am not much less confused than I was before.  Seems to me, though, that if a decision is the law of the case, and case law establishes  precedent, it becomes the law of the land until or unless upset by subsequent rulings. Otherwise, any ruling becomes advisory only, leaving citizens floundering.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shooterman
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Dum spiro pugno

Posts: 9,972
Joined: 03/01/11
Gender: Male
Re: The Powers of Congress.
Reply #39 - 05/02/12 at 10:40:15
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 05/01/12 at 16:49:50:
Thanks, Shooterman.  I, like the average layman, threading my way through this labyrinth of legal hedges, am not much less confused than I was before.  Seems to me, though, that if a decision is the law of the case, and case law establishes  precedent, it becomes the law of the land until or unless upset by subsequent rulings. Otherwise, any ruling becomes advisory only, leaving citizens floundering.


In my opinion, Pick, and I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, the precedent would only be established for like minded cases. I would also suggest very strongly the SCOTUS has ruled on cases and ignored precedent a number of times.
  

Our Bill of Rights constitutes a cluster of little foxholes of liberty ground into the hard cold face of history by helpless men for a shield against the lash of tyrants. They are the result of distrust of power and distrust of men in power. They are a recognition of Lord Acton's statement of a truth eternal--"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."R. CARTER PITTMAN&&Dalton, Ga., Sept. 28, 1955.DRAFT JAN MORGAN FOR PRESIDENT!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › The Powers of Congress.


ConservativesForum.com
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5


Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
TruthUSA
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Hotair
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules