Hard Power and Soft Power

[Spekkio]

That's a different question. Whether they choose to act in any particular way is different than whether they are the constitutionally appropriate branch of government to act.

The Constitution doesn't directly address this because the founding fathers didn't envision that we would institute the 16th amendment (the very thing they went to war over) and use the money to subsequently establish a bunch of unconstitutional federal agencies.

 

[JTS11]

The Constitution doesn't directly address this because the founding fathers didn't envision that we would institute the 16th amendment (the very thing they went to war over) and use the money to subsequently establish a bunch of unconstitutional federal agencies.

Sir, this is an Arby's...

I'm trying to process it all and figure out what you're saying. I have questions on your statement that the constitutional framers would be against the 16th Amendment.

 

[Spekkio]

They specifically forbid Congress from instituting direct taxation on the people. It keeps the federal government small and gives citizens the power to protest unpopular policies via boycotting of federally taxed goods. You know, remember that whole Boston Tea Party thing when the colonists were angry they were being squeezed to pay for King George's wars in Europe? How is that confusing?

 

[JTS11]

They specifically forbid Congress from instituting direct taxation on the people. It keeps the federal government small and gives citizens the power to protest unpopular policies via boycotting of federally taxed goods. You know, remember that whole Boston Tea Party thing? How is that confusing?

Are you seriously coming on here arguing for a repeal of the 16th Amendment that was passed in 1913 via a constitutional process to pass amendments?

I remember different lessons of why the Boston Tea Party happened...but I could be wrong.

 

[Spekkio]

I ideally would like a repeal of the 16th amendment, yes. I'd also like to go back to state legislatures selecting Senators.

However, my main point is that its ratification has allowed the federal government to grow in scope and function significantly more than the framers ever imagined, and many federally funded entities have dubious constitutionality because Congress does not have the power in Article 1 to establish them.

One example would be the DOE. I like education, I'm all for improving education standards and help funding education. But the federal government doesn't have the power to fund or regulate education, and that decision was made on purpose because that's what authoritarian countries do. And today, DOE is one of many organizations that siphons money from people who live in one state to people who live in another, which our Congressmen use for political gain and bargaining.

And I wonder how we'd be in a different spot if we didn't just hand the keys to the entire country to the unconstitutional department of health and human services for two years.

So we can gnash our teeth that the President is gutting them, but they shouldn't have ever been established in the first place. The framers were smart people, but they didn't anticipate what would happen when everyone just sort of lets the federal government establish a slew of organizations that the framers would have considered tyranny while using forced income taxation as an enabler.

 

[JTS11]

I ideally would like a repeal of the 16th amendment, yes. I'd also like to go back to state legislatures selecting Senators.

However, my main point is that its ratification has allowed the federal government to grow in scope and function significantly more than the framers ever imagined, and many federally funded entities have dubious constitutionality because Congress does not have the power in Article 1 to establish them.

One example would be the DOE. I like education, I'm all for improving education standards and help funding education. But the federal government doesn't have the power to fund or regulate education, and that decision was made on purpose because that's what authoritarian countries do. And today, DOE is one of many organizations that siphons money from people who live in one state to people who live in another, which our Congressmen use for political gain and bargaining.

So we can gnash our teeth that the President is gutting it, but it shouldn't have ever been established in the first place. The framers were smart people, but they didn't anticipate what would happen when everyone just sort of lets the federal government establish a slew of organizations that the framers would have considered tyranny.

So, you're a textualist that agrees that these wise men built in a process to amend the great document they created?

Also, they lived in an era where a few of their kids would survive to adulthood. I'm sure they'd be happy with some of the progress.

 

[Spekkio]

So, you're a textualist that agrees that these wise men built in a process to amend the great document they created?

Also, they lived in an era where a few of their kids would survive to adulthood. I'm sure they'd be happy with some of the progress.

Yes. What's your point? I'm not arguing that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional, just that it would've had a snowball's chance in hell of being ratified in the early 19th century.

The main point I'm saying is that the 2nd and 3rd order effects of instituting an income tax to pay off our Civil War debts and later ratifying the 16th amendment was that the federal government ballooned in the 20th century well beyond its Constitutional authorities that have not been amended.

If Congress wants to fund and regulate things outside of the enumerated powers in Article 1, then that also should need an amendment.

But a SCOTUS judge decided in 1934 that Article 1 was not actually an exhaustive list of enumerated federal powers, despite the fact the Constitution explicitly says so, and so here we are.

 

[JTS11]

Yes. What's your point? I'm not arguing that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional. I'm saying that the 2nd and 3rd order effects of instituting an income tax to pay off our Civil War debts and later ratifying the 16th amendment when SCOTUS decided that wasn't allowed was that the federal government ballooned in the 20th century well beyond its Constitutional authorities that have not been amended.

If the federal government wants to fund and regulate things outside of the enumerated powers in Article 1, then that also needs an amendment.

Do you believe it's a requirement to produce a driver's license when pulled over by the police when you're traveling?

 

[Spekkio]

Do you believe it's a requirement to produce a driver's license when pulled over by the police when you're traveling?

Jumping from federal to state / local government all of a sudden I see.

Yes, that is the law (at least in the state where I was licensed). Driving is a privilege regulated by state law, which is per Article IV and the 10th amendment.

But... we can not use our status as appointed federal officials to stop someone and compel someone to show their ID.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

That would probably be a good thread split for "not found in NATOPS" stuff.

Absolutely a must do thread.
Of course that will go into the same category as Sea/War Stories vs. Fairy Tales.
Would be a hoot.
Thinking back to "how to mess with the grunts"0... such as push start an H-46 at 29 Stumps. etc etc etc

 

[JTS11]

Jumping from federal to state / local government all of a sudden I see.

Yes, that is the law (at least in the state where I was licensed). Driving is a privilege regulated by state law, which is per Article IV and the 10th amendment.

But... we can not use our status as appointed federal officials to stop someone and compel someone to show their ID.

Just trying to see where you're coming from. Like should there be any federal regulations on the purchase of nitrate fertilizers. Could go on and on...

 

[Spekkio]

I'm coming from the angle that the federal government has the authorities given to it in Articles 1-3 in the Constitution and a series of shoddy split SCOTUS decisions in the 1930s has enabled that power to grow beyond the scope of what is actually written and also originally intended. A product like fertilizer that is produced and sold across state lines is fair game to be regulated under the interstate commerce clause.

And so while a lot of politicians have talked a big game about reducing the size of the federal government, someone is actually doing it. And it's not really clear in the Constitution whether or not he has that ability because Congress never should have had the ability to establish the entities in the first place, the majority of which came to fruition between 1930 and 1980.

 

[JTS11]

I'm coming from the angle that the federal government has the authorities given to it in Articles 1-3 in the Constitution and a series of shoddy split SCOTUS decisions in the 1930s has enabled that power to grow beyond the scope of what is actually written and also originally intended. A product like fertilizer that is produced and sold across state lines is fair game to be regulated under the interstate commerce clause.

And so while a lot of politicians have talked a big game about reducing the size of the federal government, someone is actually doing it. And it's not really clear in the Constitution whether or not he has that ability because Congress never should have had the ability to establish the entities in the first place, the majority of which came to fruition between 1934 and 1980.

OK got it. You're big mad at federal income tax and shit that's been settled law for over 90 years.

Done with further discussion before I ignore my own replies... 😄

 

[Spekkio]

That whole 'separate but equal' thing was 'settled law' for almost 60 years, until it wasn't.

And no, I'm not mad at all. I just don't think what the President is doing is all that controversial or unconstitutional when held up to the lens of how the federal government evolved in the 20th century.

 

[Griz882]

It was, how do you say, miserable?

Les Miz?