So you think the Constitution is simple? A plain-reading gives it's obvious intent?

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I really don't give a rat's ass what label somebody pins to himself. If he thinks the federal government has powers not given to it by the Constitution, then he either hasn't read it, or doesn't respect it.

The constitution is not like a statutue, it is not designed to be specific, limited...every word clearly defined...and even those are often found to be confusing, and vague...the constitution is, again, meant to be vague, and yet you think it's a simple read and all the answers are right before us, well then, lets go over some constitutional questions, and you can solve hundreds of years of debantes between and amongst lawyers

1) It's "We the people...and other persons" How in the american constitution can you have persons that are not people...it's the definition now and it was the definition then...it doesn't make sense

2) The preamble itself calls for helping the "general welfare" and congress itself is given power to further help the "general welfare" what does that mean, exactly, in specifics, what did every founder mean by "general welfare", a list will suffice

3) The Congress is given the authority to provide AND maintain a navy, and also to regulate and make rules for all land forces, yet the president is commander in chief, who has the authority, in say, Iraq, to make the rules and regulate the occupation force?

4) What does advise and consent mean in specifics, how exactly should it be carried out?

5) What are high crimes and misdemeanors, I mean give me the full list

6) What qualifies as giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Exactly?

7) The first amendment clearly only limits Congress, does that mean every other bill of right is also only talking about Congress...if the first words are "Congress shall" can it not apply to every bill of right?

8) Certainly, even if it ONLY applies to the first amendment, it clearly states this is a matter of the federal congress, not of the states...the states themselves, infact every state, can establish its own state religion, close all news papers, prohibit demonstrations, etc

9) What is "probable cause" exactly as the founders meant it

10) What exactly is "due process of the law"?

11) What exactly is the compulsory power for the defense to bring witnesses? If the defense called every possible witness, even those who, not under oath, claim not have seen anything but could have...in urban settings where dozens upon dozens of people are on the same block, or the crime involves multiple blocks...our entire criminal judicial system would collapse

12) What does cruel and unusual exactly mean?

13) What is the difference between "expressly delegated" powers and simply "delegated" powers?

Joe_Cool · 07-17-2007, 08:17 PM

Nice try at diversion. Section 1 clearly lays out the powers that Congress has. If the Constitution doesn't give Congress a power, then Congress doesn't have that power.

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 08:43 PM

Well looking at my reading, it looks like Congress may have the power to micro-manage any war being conducted by the commander in chief, you agree?

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 08:45 PM

I could make a much better list, but I wrote this from another thread and thought it'd make it's good own thread...

If the constitution is so simple and plain, then you can surely solve all these constitutional crisis in a second, and everyone who answers should give the exact same answer:

1) It's "We the people...and other persons" How in the american constitution can you have persons that are not people...it's the definition now and it was the definition then...it doesn't make sense

2) The preamble itself calls for helping the "general welfare" and congress itself is given power to further help the "general welfare" what does that mean, exactly, in specifics, what did every founder mean by "general welfare", a list will suffice

3) The Congress is given the authority to provide AND maintain a navy, and also to regulate and make rules for all land forces, yet the president is commander in chief, who has the authority, in say, Iraq, to make the rules and regulate the occupation force?

4) What does advise and consent mean in specifics, how exactly should it be carried out?

5) What are high crimes and misdemeanors, I mean give me the full list

6) What qualifies as giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Exactly?

7) The first amendment clearly only limits Congress, does that mean every other bill of right is also only talking about Congress...if the first words are "Congress shall" can it not apply to every bill of right?

8) Certainly, even if it ONLY applies to the first amendment, it clearly states this is a matter of the federal congress, not of the states...the states themselves, infact every state, can establish its own state religion, close all news papers, prohibit demonstrations, etc

9) What is "probable cause" exactly as the founders meant it

10) What exactly is "due process of the law"?

11) What exactly is the compulsory power for the defense to bring witnesses? If the defense called every possible witness, even those who, not under oath, claim not have seen anything but could have...in urban settings where dozens upon dozens of people are on the same block, or the crime involves multiple blocks...our entire criminal judicial system would collapse

12) What does cruel and unusual exactly mean?

13) What is the difference between "expressly delegated" powers and simply "delegated" powers?

Joe_Cool · 07-17-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Well looking at my reading, it looks like Congress may have the power to micro-manage any war being conducted by the commander in chief, you agree?

Really? Where is Congress given the power to command the military?

They can make rules for conduct, they can raise, fund, and equip the army & navy, and they can call up the militia. I don't see anything that gives them the power to command.

They can say "if you don't do what we want, we'll cut off money", but they can't issue a single order to the lowest ranking recruit, and no officer or enlisted man ever is required to salute a congressman.

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Really? Where is Congress given the power to command the military?

They can make rules for conduct, they can raise, fund, and equip the army & navy, and they can call up the militia. I don't see anything that gives them the power to command.

They can say "if you don't do what we want, we'll cut off money", but they can't issue a single order to the lowest ranking recruit, and no officer or enlisted man ever is required to salute a congressman.

new rules of conduct, you can't operate outside these coordinates...you know how you can't enter Syria, well now you can't enter Baghdad

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-18-2007, 02:41 AM

The document is facially unclear.

thatguyoverthere · 07-18-2007, 10:05 AM

I would reply, but all my answers would be lame attempts at humor. i.e.:

1. "Other persons" obviously refers to robots, zombies, and fairys.

2. "General welfare" refers to food stamps issued to our highest ranking military officers.

3. The Village People wrote "In The Navy." What's your point?

...and so on and so on, resulting in a thread derailment, mass bannings, and no laughs.

But seriously, great thread. I'll be interested in reading the discussion and replies from the Constitutional experts on the forum.

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2007, 10:07 AM

1) It's "We the people...and other persons" How in the american constitution can you have persons that are not people...it's the definition now and it was the definition then...it doesn't make sense

and other persons? What constitution are you reading? I just did a text search and the only reference to "other Persons" is the 3/5ths clause which was taken out in 1868 (14th Amendment)

2) The preamble itself calls for helping the "general welfare" and congress itself is given power to further help the "general welfare" what does that mean, exactly, in specifics, what did every founder mean by "general welfare", a list will suffice

This one is for someone with the Federalist Papers in hand, which I don't have

3) The Congress is given the authority to provide AND maintain a navy, and also to regulate and make rules for all land forces, yet the president is commander in chief, who has the authority, in say, Iraq, to make the rules and regulate the occupation force?

You're looking at two different things here. The Navy in the constitution was meant to deal with piracy in American waters, which is why it says maintain. The founders were against a standing army, but the Navy was to be used as more of a ocean police force to protect our imports and exports.

As far as land forces, the founders are spinning in their graves since we have a military presence in some 150 nations or whatever it is. No way they would have thought we'd be fighting foreign wars in which most of the nation doesn't think the "enemy" is truly affecting our freedom.

But the point to carry away is that the President is supposed to be head of strategy, and congress provides the money to keep the Army up while it's needed. Once a military is no longer needed, they're SUPPOSED to scale back funding, and the states are to keep their militias trained. As for the Rules part, it says make rules for the government and regulation for the land and naval forces. Rules for the government is just legislation. Regulation of land and naval forces is supposed to restrict them from performing certain tasks. The president might be commander of strategy (strategery?), but the congress can certainly say "We shall have no armed forces doing [X]." I'm sure it was an important clause at founding, but it seems they don't exercise that much anymore.

4) What does advise and consent mean in specifics, how exactly should it be carried out?

Here's the complete clause:

"He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Advice and Consent on a Treaty is fairly obvious, it says he needs 2/3rd's approval, so obviously they can ask that certain things be taken out of a treaty in order to achieve that 2/3rd's vote. As for the Advice and Consent needed for Ambassadors etc... We can see often how Judges are chosen. The president nominates someone, the Senate questions them, they vote on it. This method of back and forth is Advice and Consent.

5) What are high crimes and misdemeanors, I mean give me the full list

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can't we just say this clause is saying the President and VP are not exempt from the law? Asking for a list is silly, because laws change.

6) What qualifies as giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Exactly?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

From usconstitution.net:

"The authors were concerned about the definition of treason. They thought that it was used too broadly to define any dissenting opinions. Their new country would be much stricter about what treason was, and how one would be accused and convicted of it.

Treason, then, is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. To be convicted, the accused must confess to treason, or be accused by two direct witnesses of the treason.

The authors were also concerned that the person convicted of treason be the only one to suffer for the treasonous acts. The Constitution explicitly states that there may be no "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation; the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends."

I think the more important part of what you have issue with is the word "giving" not the "aid and comfort" part. If we were at war with France, and French soldiers came and took over your house and used it as a base of opperation, you certainly shouldn't be seen as treasonous. But if you gave your house willingly, then it's a different matter.

It makes sense they were trying to make sure no one could be accused of treason willy-nilly... they had spent a good deal of time before that being seen as nothing more than traitors to the crown, and were treated as such when caught by the English military.

7) The first amendment clearly only limits Congress, does that mean every other bill of right is also only talking about Congress...if the first words are "Congress shall" can it not apply to every bill of right?

This is reaching beyond belief. The first amendment is limiting Congress from making a law, but a lot of the other amendments have nothing to do with congress or making laws at all. To name a few, the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 11th are just about the judicial system. The 12th is just about the executive branch. I mean, this issue you have with the constitution, unless you're kidding, is just plain silly.

8) Certainly, even if it ONLY applies to the first amendment, it clearly states this is a matter of the federal congress, not of the states...the states themselves, infact every state, can establish its own state religion, close all news papers, prohibit demonstrations, etc

The Constitution is a FEDERAL document. Each state has its own constitution by which is must abide. I know myself and a few others have said 100 times that the Constitution is meant to be a limiting document on the federal government. The amendments were added to make SOME rights expressly clear, but our rights are certainly not limited to those mentioned.

9) What is "probable cause" exactly as the founders meant it

It is the court's job to interpret exactly what that means, so it will change. As for what the founders wanted it to mean, I'm sure there are plenty of papers out there on it, but considering the British would just come in and search through their shit at any time and without warrant/notice, the clause was undoubtedly meant to address that issue.

10) What exactly is "due process of the law"?

From usconstitution.net:

"Due process is a difficult thing to define, and the Supreme Court has not been much help over the years. Here's what we can say about due process:

In the Magna Carta, due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of peers." Some state constitutions continue to use these phrases.

The reference in the 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government and its courts and agencies. The reference in the 14th Amendment extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts.

Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.

In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.

Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):

* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated "

11) What exactly is the compulsory power for the defense to bring witnesses? If the defense called every possible witness, even those who, not under oath, claim not have seen anything but could have...in urban settings where dozens upon dozens of people are on the same block, or the crime involves multiple blocks...our entire criminal judicial system would collapse

That's why we have judges.

12) What does cruel and unusual exactly mean?

This is another one for the courts to decide. Again, looking at why it's in there is important. The British treated their American prisoners HORRIBLY. Here's a link I found fairly easily about how American prisoners were treated during the Revolution:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-64910237.html

13) What is the difference between "expressly delegated" powers and simply "delegated" powers?

Where do you see "expressly delegated?" The only time a reference to delegated powers is mentioned is in the 10th Amendment, which was the final compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists didn't want a Bill of Rights at all, because they felt people would see the list as the only rights they're guaranteed (which seems to have come true). The anti-federalists wouldn't agree to the constitution without the Bill of Rights because they felt that since the rest of the document didn't specifically guarantee those things, they could eventually be taken away (which might have come true).

At any rate, the 10th is an attempt to say that anything not mentioned in the Bill of Rights isn't to be abridged by the federal government, which means it's left up to the states. I would say this (the 10th) is easily the most violated part of the constitution.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 11:58 AM

I want to see more replies and see if everyone agrees exactly with what you said, being as the constitution is so plain and simple anyone who understands english and reads it knows everything that it means, however I will pull out some interesting quotes in regards to that (ill take on your points at a later date)

This one is for someone with the Federalist Papers in hand

Asking for a list is silly, because laws change.

It is the court's job to interpret exactly what that means

Due process is a difficult thing to define

That's why we have judges.

This is another one for the courts to decide

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2007, 12:06 PM

It's awesome to pick out small snippets of larger answers to try to make some point.

To address most of those (except the first one, I simply don't have a copy of the federalist papers on hand), it is the job of the courts to interpret and uphold the constitution, as it always has been. To ask for something like a list of things that the President isn't allowed to do is excessive and reaching because there are more laws today than there were at founding. So that's more stuff the president can't do without being impeached.

thomez · 07-18-2007, 12:08 PM

Federalist Papers in free online texts + other Founding Fathers info

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-18-2007, 12:09 PM

Doesn't the necessity of the federalist papers to interpret the Constitution support his claim that the document is unclear? If the document was clear on its face, all you'd need to understand it is the document itself.

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Doesn't the necessity of the federalist papers to interpret the Constitution support his claim that the document is unclear? If the document was clear on its face, all you'd need to understand it is the document itself.

The courts use original intent all the time to interpret the constitution. The federalist papers include writings by the founders that describe in more detail their intent.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Federalist Papers in free online texts + other Founding Fathers info

Why do I need federalist papers to read the constitution, it's in plain english...there is no footnote that says "please consult federalist papers"

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The courts use original intent all the time to interpret the constitution. The federalist papers include writings by the founders that describe in more detail their intent.

Why should I need to "interpret" the constitution, anyone fluent in english can simply read it

Phantom · 07-18-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why should I need to "interpret" the constitution, anyone fluent in english can simply read it

Authors decided to keep the document vague rather than specific. States accepted it that way.

What's the point ?