Democratic House Passes College Cost Reduction Act

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

you said "there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!""

that's wrong

I was making a broad stroke but I thought you know what I meant, there were no SERIOUS calls by the GROUP OF FOUNDING FATHERS that he was being unconstitutional, there were complaints from people who were unhappy before he even took office

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This bill deals with federal loans...I have never met a soul in my life who turned down federal/state loans for a private loan

if that were the case there would be no need for federal student loans

people don't turn down the federal loans because they are fucking subsidized through tax dollars and private institutions cannot compete with their rates and terms! the new lower rates make this even worse, it decreases competition, increases govt liabilities, and in all likelihood will make school even more expensive

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I was making a broad stroke but I thought you know what I meant, there were no SERIOUS calls by the GROUP OF FOUNDING FATHERS that he was being unconstitutional, there were complaints from people who were unhappy before he even took office

really? I think there were pretty serious calls about Hamilton's bank programs being unconstitutional

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

people don't turn down the federal loans because they are fucking subsidized through tax dollars and private institutions cannot compete with their rates and terms! the new lower rates make this even worse, it decreases competition, increases govt liabilities, and in all likelihood will make school even more expensive

Ok, so you want to end the federal program for student loans? That's an insanely radical position that maybe 5% of americans hold and we'll have to agree to disagree on that point

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Question: Does the federal government have constitutional authority to offer grants in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I used financial aid and was grateful for it, and in general I see this as a "good thing", but seriously, is it constitutional?

Why wouldn't it be just another part of Congress' power pursuant to the tax and spend clause?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

really? I think there were pretty serious calls about Hamilton's bank programs being unconstitutional

There were also calls that Jefferson's LA Purchase was outrageously unconstitutional...strangely enough by people that held his exact ideological positions

A few yelps doesn't count in my book, you have people who think murder should be legal if you see someone dealing drugs in your neighborhood, doesn't mean it's a serious belief

The overwhelming consensus was that those white houses followed the federalist constitution and its federalist edited and passed amendments

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ok, so you want to end the federal program for student loans? That's an insanely radical position that maybe 5% of americans hold and we'll have to agree to disagree on that point

yes, I do

it is an unnecessary government program that fucks with the free market

what is right is not always popular

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There were also calls that Jefferson's LA Purchase was outrageously unconstitutional...strangely enough by people that held his exact ideological positions

A few yelps doesn't count in my book, you have people who think murder should be legal if you see someone dealing drugs in your neighborhood, doesn't mean it's a serious belief

The overwhelming consensus was that those white houses followed the federalist constitution and its federalist edited and passed amendments

ok, so I guess you are admitting you were wrong, because there were many serious calls of unconstitutionality during the first few presidencies... many indeed

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

ok, so I guess you are admitting you were wrong, because there were many serious calls of unconstitutionality during the first few presidencies... many indeed

Fine, get me a large selection of founding fathers, names and all, that were oppposed to all the programs not specifically written in the constitution...and I'm not talking anyone who showed up at the conventions, I am talking about people who fought and argued for the passage of the constitution

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Fine, get me a large selection of founding fathers, names and all, that were oppposed to all the programs not specifically written in the constitution...and I'm not talking anyone who showed up at the conventions, I am talking about people who fought and argued for the passage of the constitution

Alexander Hamilton

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

good enough?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Alexander Hamilton

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

good enough?

That ofcourse isn't correct and this is really side-tracking the thread

Hamilton was ofcourse for many government programs that Jefferson was opposed to...Jefferson himself made the LA purchase...Madison was against a specific plan for the national bank, not (if i remember correctly) any type of national bank conceivable, and i know he wasn't against all federal programs, and when it came time, he could have let the bank run out, but he established a national bank again

These are your examples, they are, in my opinion, very poor, and the subject for another thread

[thomez]

Hamilton said that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to federally fund a canal system.

Jefferson and Madison both said the bank was unconstitutional.

Questioning the constitutionality of actions was definitely common by the founders during the first few presidencies.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Hamilton said that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to federally fund a canal system.

Jefferson and Madison both said the bank was unconstitutional.

Questioning the constitutionality of actions was definitely common by the founders during the first few presidencies.

this is my last response of this side track,

Did Hamilton want a constitutional amendment for building roads outside strictly postal usage?

Did Madison have an outcry against all federalist proposed programs?

And we both know Jefferson had to be dragged kicked and screaming to NOT PROTEST the constitution, he eventually gave a golf clap after his arm was twisted by Madison long enough...he certainly was not a driving force behind the constitution

[thomez]

face it dude, your statements...

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, if you look at the Washington, Adams, Jefferson presidency, you had much more elaborate programs outside what the constitutional clearly stated, and there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!" from the founding fathers who just finished writing/debat

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I was making a broad stroke but I thought you know what I meant, there were no SERIOUS calls by the GROUP OF FOUNDING FATHERS that he was being unconstitutional, there were complaints from people who were unhappy before he even took office

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Fine, get me a large selection of founding fathers, names and all, that were oppposed to all the programs not specifically written in the constitution...and I'm not talking anyone who showed up at the conventions, I am talking about people who fought and argued for the passage of the constitution

were completely wrong

if you didn't know you were wrong, you wouldn't be wriggling away to obscurities and minutia

[Thorgrim]

I stand by everything I said...find me founding FATHERS who said exactly "Washington is being unconstitutional!"

Again, there were no serious calls that he was being unconstitutional, there were complaints by many who opposed the constitution in the first place that his exact method of using a bank had some constitutionalist questions...that is not anywhere close to "This Washington Presidency...it's lost its way and it's not following the constitution at all"

Finally, there is no such group, as I've been trying to say all along

There was an unsettling group of writers (shocking considering they all loved to write), almost all of whom never supported the constitution, who opposed one particular plan...and to you that equates that the federal government shouldn't have any plans not specifically mentioned in the constitution

I have no idea how that worked out logically, but this is beyond pointless

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The question is....is it unconstitutional

No, if you look at the Washington, Adams, Jefferson presidency, you had much more elaborate programs outside what the constitutional clearly stated, and there were no calls that "Washington is being unconstitutional!" from the founding fathers who just finished writing/debating it and were alive and well

This is a basic point and I hate to make it, but the constitution is intentionally vague to give breathing room for the then new government to adapt while holding on to core principles

There are no serious grounds to call this unconstitutional

Actually, since the federal government has no powers not delegated to it by the constitution, the question is... "does the constitution give the federal government the authority to fund college for students?"

And I see nothing in the constitution that might be construed to give that power.

If there's something I've overlooked, do point it out. It's an honest question.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Actually, since the federal government has no powers not delegated to it by the constitution, the question is... "does the constitution give the federal government the authority to fund college for students?"

And I see nothing in the constitution that might be construed to give that power.

If there's something I've overlooked, do point it out. It's an honest question.

You know how sometimes bills are amended in such a way that they lose much of their meaning or power?

Same exact thing happened with the 10th amendment, the federalists only passed it after stripping out the word "expressly"

The original amendment was meant to strictly limit the federal government, saying "The powers not EXPRESLY delegated to the United States...to the states"

The federalists wanted none of that shit, and stripped out the word expressly, leaving a huge open hole compared to the original for the use of "neccessary and proper" and other constitutional powers to expand the federal government

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You know how sometimes bills are amended in such a way that they lose much of their meaning or power?

Same exact thing happened with the 10th amendment, the federalists only passed it after stripping out the word "expressly"

The original amendment was meant to strictly limit the federal government, saying "The powers not EXPRESLY delegated to the United States...to the states"

The federalists wanted none of that shit, and stripped out the word expressly, leaving a huge open hole compared to the original for the use of "neccessary and proper" and other constitutional powers to expand the federal government

Yeah that's great except for two problems:

1) Where in the Constitution is that power IMPLICITLY delegated to the United States?

2) "Necessary and proper" doesn't mean Congress gets to do whatever it wants. Read it again:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So Congress has the power to make any law thats necessary and proper for carrying out powers delegated to the US by the Constitution. Not just any law they feel like making.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Yeah that's great except for two problems:

1) Where in the Constitution is that power IMPLICITLY delegated to the United States?

2) "Necessary and proper" doesn't mean Congress gets to do whatever it wants. Read it again:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So Congress has the power to make any law thats necessary and proper for carrying out powers delegated to the US by the Constitution. Not just any law they feel like making.

yes, but not expressly delegated, a much more loose standard...listen, new deal programs were struck down by a conservative Supreme Court, but many survived, and to this day even hard-right "non-activist" judges like Roberts, who I think you'll agree has forgotten more about constitutional law than you'll ever know, do not hold out very high standard for making a federal US program

this may help:
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 2