Democracy at work in House of Representatives?

[HercDriver]

From the Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, Hyde Park, New York website:

"... Only when the federal government imposed rationing, recruited 6 million defense workers (including women and African Americans), drafted 6 million soldiers, and ran massive deficits to fight World War II did the Great Depression finally end ..."
DAMN those right-wingers AND DAMN their think tanks !!! :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:
P.S. ... I always preferred to fly right wing vs. left wing -- it seemed 'easier' and certainly had a more 'natural feeling' ...

No dispute on WWII ending the Depression, just on FDR's policies not having an effect (like the lowering of unemployment), and the Depression being prolonged by the New Deal.

*Hanging out on the Eleanor Roosevelt Nat'l Historic web site...will wonders never cease*

 

[Jim123]

Great Depression, Smoot-Hawley, Reaganomics

Guys, guys, guys, (and girls), they cover all of this in Ferris Bueller's Day off, in the scene right before he gets his girlfriend out of class...

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Elaborate, please.

Social Security
Medicare
Health Care Reform
Bailouts
Cap and Trade
Wall Street Reform

those are the biggies off the top of my head.

No comment I take it?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The Constitution is not very specific in some of the powers that are granted to Congress.

Sure it is. If you understood the history leading up to the making of the Constitution, the events that transpired during the summer of 1787, and then the creation of the Bill of Rights, you would see why the powers delegated to the Federal government are very specific.

“Congress shall have Power To… provide for the… general Welfare of the United States,” and “Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce... among the several States…” WTF does that mean?

If you are having trouble understanding what those words mean in the context in which they were written, then why are you arguing with me about it? Are you just arguing to argue?

You and I can debate the meaning of those words ad nauseam (although I would prefer to do it in a more convenient forum), but fortunately there are people much smarter than either you or I who have already made our arguments, and a deliberative body that has already ruled on the issues.

If you want to believe that you are less intelligent than others who have made similar arguments, then so be it. But you don't know me, where I've been, what I've done, or what I know. I am not a lawyer nor do I believe you need to be one to understand the Constitution (hell, John Marshall only studied law briefly, for less than a year), though I did take several law courses in college (which many of us know, really means nothing). With that said, I've read more books on Colonial history, the making of the Constitution, Constitutional history, and Constitutional law than I can count....for fun, because I find the subject very interesting. I'm not trying to impress you; I couldn't care less about that. I'm just trying to show you that the statements I make are not based on any preconceived notion I have or how I feel about any particular political party.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the case. That's a fairly popular quote you picked but does nothing for your argument. It's almost ironic in a sense, that you quote an excerpt from the majority decision of a case that declares the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the same act that established the judicial framework, including the form and specific responsibilities of the Supreme Court itself. So here we have John Marshal proclaiming that the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws, thereby interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. On one hand he's saying the law is unconstitutional and on the other he's using it to establish to power of judicial review. But where did this power of judicial review originate? Clearly, John Marshal couldn't derive this power from the Judiciary Act of 1789, for he had declared that law unconstitutional. And the power of judicial review isn't found in the Constitution. Don't you think if the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on the constitutionality of laws, they would have written it into the Constitution?

And I haven't even mentioned the best part. The case itself was brought by Marbury because of the failure of Marshall (when he was Sec. of State under Adams) to deliver 17 appointments that Adams made, Marbury being one of those to not physically receive the appointment papers by Marshall. So, here was a guy deciding a case in which he had a hand in. If this happened today, people would be crying foul due to conflict of interest, and rightfully so.

Bottom line is the Constitution says nothing of judicial review or the Supreme Court's authority to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And since we're quoting excerpts from the decision of that case, how about this one. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written."

I realize the Supreme Court is here to stay and the doctrine of stare decisis will live on. But I always find it interesting when people turn to Supreme Court decisions to back up their argument regarding whether something basic is constitutional or not. It's like saying, "I'm not smart enough to figure this shit out on my own, so I'll defer to the Supreme Court." All of us here know that a decision made this year can be reversed next year or 10 or 20 years later. Constitutional principles don't change. If we find that changes to the Constitution are needed, there are processes specifically designed to do just that. The Constitution should NOT be changed through case law.

Since 1942, the United States Supreme Court has allowed the Congress to exercise broad powers under the Commerce Clause. Basically any activity that had even a small impact on interstate commerce was found to be within the purview of Congress. The 1942 case involved an Ohio farmer who, in violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, grew more wheat on his farm than was allowed under the Act, even though the wheat was for use on his farm only and therefore would not be introduced into the stream of commerce. The Court ruled that if the farmer had limited his wheat planting to that allowed under the Act, he may have purchased additional wheat on the open market, and thus his excess planting could have had an impact on the sale of wheat, which was a commodity traded across state lines. This is still “good law” today, although the Court in a more recent decision (United States v. Lopez,514 U.S. 549 (1995)) has applied some limits to the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

The first case heard regarding the Commerce Clause was Gibbons v Ogden, heard by the Marshall Court (where have we heard that name before?). If you look a the history behind the commerce clause, you'll see that the impetus of the Constitutional Convention itself was the Confederation's lack of authority to regulate interstate commerce. The intent and purpose of the Commerce Clause currently in the Constitution was to eliminate trade barriers that some states had put up under the Articles of Confederation. You can look to the Supreme Court to give you your answer what the Commerce Clause means. I'll look to the history behind the intent and purpose.

You are understandably peeved that Congress provides funding for “bullshit” programs that you don’t like (or that you feel are more properly left to the States), but the constitutionality of that spending is an issue that has been brought before, and answered by, the United States Supreme Court.

Ah yes, the Supreme Court again....the source for all our answers. And it's not so much the bullshit programs (yes, that is part of it). It's Congress interjecting itself more and more into areas they have no business in, setting up precedent to interject itself into other areas But I guess we'll just wait for the Supreme Court to determine whether Congress is violating the Constitution instead of actually thinking for ourselves and holding Congress accountable.

 

[HercDriver]

Originally Posted by Steve Wilkins
Social Security
Medicare
Health Care Reform
Bailouts
Cap and Trade
Wall Street Reform

those are the biggies off the top of my head.

No comment I take it?

Sorry, I missed your reply. I understand your argument on the above programs, but feel it can be argued either way.

I think the idea that a large percentage of people are unhappy with Social Security, Medicare, and even Wall Street Reform is a stretch. I would put it a definite minority, actually. A very vocal minority, but a small minority none the less.

As for the unconstitutionality of these programs; I will be fascinated to see any challenges in the Supreme Court to them. Even with this very conservative court, I doubt they would lift a finger on any of them as entitlements and regulatory reform have been a part of the Federal Government for many decades.

 

[Spekkio]

If you are having trouble understanding what those words mean in the context in which they were written, then why are you arguing with me about it? Are you just arguing to argue?

To be fair, the Supreme Court has left this up to Congress to define. Clearly you are taking an "original intent" approach to interpreting these phrases, but that is not the only valid interpretation of it.

Don't you think if the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on the constitutionality of laws, they would have written it into the Constitution?

I think that the founders, many of whom were still involved in our Federal Government circa 1787, would have promptly amended the Constitution if they had a large issue with this.

Perhaps you could point me to quotes of our founding fathers railing against the SC for this decision because I've never heard or read any.

All of us here know that a decision made this year can be reversed next year or 10 or 20 years later. Constitutional principles don't change. If we find that changes to the Constitution are needed, there are processes specifically designed to do just that. The Constitution should NOT be changed through case law.

A big part of what has made the Constitution so survivable is the fact that it's a fluid document that has no rigid interpretation. The way our generation interprets it may not be the same way our children do, nor does it need to be.

There are some phrases that are clear-cut in the constitution, but "provide for the general welfare" isn't one of them.

"I'm not smart enough to figure this shit out on my own, so I'll defer to the Supreme Court."

People do this because the Supreme Court consists of 9 very prominent lawyers in our country who have studied far more Supreme Court decisions in far more detail than either of us probably ever will. It's the same thing as deferring to economists when discussing Obama's bailout strategy -- they are the "experts."

 

[Spekkio]

I think the idea that a large percentage of people are unhappy with Social Security, Medicare, and even Wall Street Reform is a stretch. I would put it a definite minority, actually. A very vocal minority, but a small minority none the less.

You won't find a majority because the majority of people would never do independent research to weigh the actual cost: benefit of these programs, nor would they consider the implications of more ethical questions like should we give away our right to manage our retirement funds to the government?

People are taught in middle school that FDR is the savior of America; that natural monopolies are intrinsically evil things that will price-gouge consumers into poverty; that social security, welfare, etc are necessary to keep the economy going. These are all lies on the scale of when your 1st grade math teacher said that you can't subtract 5 from 3.

So I don't really think that it's accurate to appeal to a populace who doesn't have the motivation to even think about these issues, let alone research them.

As for the unconstitutionality of these programs; I will be fascinated to see any challenges in the Supreme Court to them. Even with this very conservative court, I doubt they would lift a finger on any of them as entitlements and regulatory reform have been a part of the Federal Government for many decades.

I doubt the SC would take the case, mostly because of what you said: These programs are overwhelmingly popular and have been engrained in our society for 60 years. This conservative court would rather avoid "legislating from the bench" and allow Congress to make its own decision on the issues.

 

[m26]

People do this because the Supreme Court consists of 9 very prominent lawyers in our country who have studied far more Supreme Court decisions in far more detail than either of us probably ever will.

It's more than 9 lawyers who study more than Supreme Court decisions. It's 9 prominent legal minds plus another cadre of Harvard Law School graduates poring over case law (not just at the Supreme Court level), the constitution, legislation, history, and philosophy.

 

[Brett327]

As with many issues discussed here, much of it boils down to a matter of idealism vs pragmatism, and while it's nice to wax poetic about the way things ought to be, most of the time, we just have to deal with things as they actually are or as we've allowed them to become. It's difficult to suddently stand up for a strict contructionist interpretation of our constitution when we're been sliding further and further away from that for the last 200 years.

Brett

 

[Steve Wilkins]

To be fair, the Supreme Court has left this up to Congress to define. Clearly you are taking an "original intent" approach to interpreting these phrases, but that is not the only valid interpretation of it.

So let me get this straight. The Supreme Court, who's authority is derived from legislation passed by Congress (per the Constitution) in turn leaves this particular concept up to Congress to do with it as they will? So Congress is giving the Supreme Court the authority to give back Congress the authority to determine what the Commerce Clause means? Let's think about that for a second.

I think that the founders, many of whom were still involved in our Federal Government circa 1787, would have promptly amended the Constitution if they had a large issue with this.

To a certain degree I agree with what you're saying, but only because many of the Framers that were involved in writing the Constitution also held significant positions in government after the fact. However, in general, I don't think the notion of not doing something to the contrary (i.e. not making an issue of it) makes it constitutional. If you drive down the road past a police officer faster than the posted speed limit, are you still not breaking the law?

A big part of what has made the Constitution so survivable is the fact that it's a fluid document that has no rigid interpretation. The way our generation interprets it may not be the same way our children do, nor does it need to be.

So the meaning of the Constitution is based on which way the wind is blowing on any particular day?

There are some phrases that are clear-cut in the constitution, but "provide for the general welfare" isn't one of them.

No, but "provide for the common defense and general welfare" certainly is.

People do this because the Supreme Court consists of 9 very prominent lawyers in our country who have studied far more Supreme Court decisions in far more detail than either of us probably ever will.

Ok, that's just dumb. Do you also sit back and defer to a pilot that has more experience and knowledge than you, but is doing something stupid and that could potentially kill or maim you?

It's the same thing as deferring to economists when discussing Obama's bailout strategy -- they are the "experts."

You just made my point. Suggestion: study, learn, think for yourself

 

[Steve Wilkins]

This conservative court would rather avoid "legislating from the bench" and allow Congress to make its own decision on the issues.

As it should for the vast majority of cases that come before it.

 

[Spekkio]

You just made my point. Suggestion: study, learn, think for yourself

Most economists think Obama's bailouts are terrible, and I gather from your posts that you feel the same way. So what point am I making for you?

Ok, that's just dumb. Do you also sit back and defer to a pilot that has more experience and knowledge than you, but is doing something stupid and that could potentially kill or maim you?

Apples to oranges here. Waking up a pilot that's asleep at the stick is a lot different than debating the interpretation of the Constitution.

So the meaning of the Constitution is based on which way the wind is blowing on any particular day?

In some respects, yes.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I think the idea that a large percentage of people are unhappy with Social Security, Medicare, and even Wall Street Reform is a stretch. I would put it a definite minority, actually. A very vocal minority, but a small minority none the less.

Let me make this as simple as I can without drawing this out into an entire essay. The government gets its authority from the people. That's me and you. We delegate certain powers to it to take care of various functions. With that said, do you believe you have the authority compel me to give you my property for the purpose of my retirement and for others? Do you have the authority to compel me to give you my properety in exchange for my medical care now and later. Furthermore, do you have the authority to compel others to give me their property for the same reasons just mentioned? If your answer is no, then how can you delegate that same power to the government?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It's more than 9 lawyers who study more than Supreme Court decisions. It's 9 prominent legal minds plus another cadre of Harvard Law School graduates poring over case law (not just at the Supreme Court level), the constitution, legislation, history, and philosophy.

No requirement to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

As with many issues discussed here, much of it boils down to a matter of idealism vs pragmatism, and while it's nice to wax poetic about the way things ought to be, most of the time, we just have to deal with things as they actually are or as we've allowed them to become. It's difficult to suddently stand up for a strict contructionist interpretation of our constitution when we're been sliding further and further away from that for the last 200 years.

Brett

I think it was a bit difficult for the Colonists to win their independence too, don't you think?