Easy constitutional way to get basically unlimited federal power?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You've accepted the commerce clause argument? You are a very lonely libertarian then

I'm not a big fan, but it's hard to deny reality

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm not a big fan, but it's hard to deny reality

Don't go to any libertarian events, you'll be tarred and feathered

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

see THATS THE THING, even if we use your twisted libertarian logic, IT STILL WORKS

HERE IS A LIST OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SPECIFICALLY DO:
SIGN LEGAL BINDING FEDERAL TREATIES


HERE IS A LIST OF WHAT STATES CAN'T SPECIFICALLY DO:
SIGN ANY BINDING TREATY


Leading to:



So the federal government CAN MAKE TREATIES THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE STATES

I understand that only the federal government can make treaties.

I also understand that the federal government can only do what is expressely delegated in the Constitution. So, if it's not in the Constitution, they can't do it. So your point is moot.

[Thorgrim]

what part of making treaties being expressly delegated don't you understand?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

what part of making treaties being expressly delegated don't you understand?

Please give a real world example of you point. Not this generalizing crap.

[Ardentfrost]

I've actually mentioned the loophole Thorgrim is talking about before, but using more real examples... namely, how we got involved in a lot of "conflicts" (read, wars) over the past 60 years since WW2. Treaties have allowed the president alone to enter into wars (not called wars), skipping the constitutional requirement of war being declared by only congress. The senate does have to approve of all treaties, but vague wording and "good intentions" can easily get something passed that will be used for alternative purposes.

Just because it has never happened doesn't mean it's impossible for Thorgrim's example to come to fruition. I don't see how we can enter a treaty with another country that will require us to have national healthcare or federally allow gay marriage or whatever else, but that doesn't mean it canNOT happen.

I've had problem with the treaty loophole for a while. With stronger wording in the 10th amendment, at least the judicial branch could say that a treaty isn't constitution therefore void because it calls for the states and the people to give up a right to the federal government not outlined in the constitution. I don't think that would have prevented our entering into illegal wars, however.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Please give a real world example of you point. Not this generalizing crap.

President Bush accepts and 2/3rds of the Senate ratify a treaty with Germany saying that for world interest they will lead the charge in showing the benefits of government healthcare

The US and Germany implement universal healthcare completely controlled for and run by the federal government

Completely constitutional

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I've actually mentioned the loophole Thorgrim is talking about before, but using more real examples... namely, how we got involved in a lot of "conflicts" (read, wars) over the past 60 years since WW2. Treaties have allowed the president alone to enter into wars (not called wars), skipping the constitutional requirement of war being declared by only congress. The senate does have to approve of all treaties, but vague wording and "good intentions" can easily get something passed that will be used for alternative purposes.

Just because it has never happened doesn't mean it's impossible for Thorgrim's example to come to fruition. I don't see how we can enter a treaty with another country that will require us to have national healthcare or federally allow gay marriage or whatever else, but that doesn't mean it canNOT happen.

I've had problem with the treaty loophole for a while. With stronger wording in the 10th amendment, at least the judicial branch could say that a treaty isn't constitution therefore void because it calls for the states and the people to give up a right to the federal government not outlined in the constitution. I don't think that would have prevented our entering into illegal wars, however.

We sign human right treaties all the time which include things not found in the constitution

Just label this and others another human right

[Ardentfrost]

Isn't this how environmentalism spreads throughout the world? Enviro-conscious countries put pressure on non-enviro-conscious countries and allow alleviation of said pressure through a treaty?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We sign human right treaties all the time which include things not found in the constitution

Just label this and others another human right

Good point... god treaties suck.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Good point... god treaties suck.

Thank god someone finally read my post and gave any thoughtful reply

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

President Bush accepts and 2/3rds of the Senate ratify a treaty with Germany saying that for world interest they will lead the charge in showing the benefits of government healthcare

The US and Germany implement universal healthcare completely controlled for and run by the federal government

Completely constitutional

Ok.

But what's your point?


Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Of course I would think this is a bad "loophole" but I'm assuming you think this is good?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Ok.

But what's your point?


Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Of course I would think this is a bad "loophole" but I'm assuming you think this is good?

Good/Bad is not the purpose of my thread, those are subjective

It's a VALID loophole

Unlike the commerce clause which is challengeable as a stretch, there is no stretch here...straight reading

When you hear about the court/government using the commerce clause, you can shake your fist violently and go "bah thats unconstitutional, they don't wouldn't know the consitution if it hit them in the face!"

However, if they used the treaty as spelled out in the constitution, you'd have no argument on constitutional grounds

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Good/Bad is not the purpose of my thread, those are subjective

It's a VALID loophole

Unlike the commerce clause which is challengeable as a stretch, there is no stretch here...straight reading

When you hear about the court/government using the commerce clause, you can shake your fist violently and go "bah thats unconstitutional, they don't wouldn't know the consitution if it hit them in the face!"

However, if they used the treaty as spelled out in the constitution, you'd have no argument on constitutional grounds

ok, I agree.

I do think the commerce clause is bullshit.

However, I can't think of a reason why this wouldn't be valid to the letter of the constitution.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

ok, I agree.

I do think the commerce clause is bullshit.

However, I can't think of a reason why this wouldn't be valid to the letter of the constitution.

And that's why it's interesting, and thats why I brought it up


The more you know TM

[Ardentfrost]

The constitution is obviously a very important document, but sometimes the 200 year old wording confuses our modern retarded brains

Hell, honestly, the wording of the original document confused people back then too, which is why we even have the Bill of Rights. We know their intention was to outline the specific rights of the federal branches of our government... however, even back then some people (the anti-federalists) felt they needed to expressly protect certain rights. Was it required? No, the rights are certainly covered in the scope of the original document. And now, 230 years removed from the writing of the document, we can't imagine it without the part that says the government can't infringe our right of free speech. People don't see it as redundant anymore, they see it as the only thing that protects journalists from being tossed in jail on a whim.

At any rate, I digress... with the treaty loophole, it wasn't even used in that manner for 175 years. The founders were brilliant, but they were still men, hence imperfect. Had they been able to foresee every consequence of the way they worded the document, they may have worded it differently.

This is why I don't only look at what is written, but also their reason for writing it. The reasons clear up everything. For instance, the whole gun debate is moot when you look at the founders' purpose instead of studying the words of the second amendment. The enemy they had just won their freedom from tried to take away their guns to prevent them from accomplishing what they did, so of course they weren't against citizens owning guns (quite for it).

As for treaties, it can be drafted and/or signed by the president, but the senate must approve. At the time, the senate was full of appointed men who were there to look out for their own state without the politics of elections (the HoR, on the other hand, was there to represent specific citizens). If a treaty reached senate approval, that means that at least most states did not feel that the action would undermine their powers.

But it's not like that today. The senate doesn't represent the state, but the citizens within the state who elect them, JUST LIKE the HoR. This is a major hit to states' rights because they do not necessarily care about protecting the rights of the state, just the popularity of the legislation or treaty.

And yes, I realize I'm complaining about an amendment that is 94 years old, but I'm just saying how much has changed since original intent. If we are going to have amendments like the 17th, we need other protections. Add in that treaties must also be approved by the Supreme Court so they can see if they notice any loopholes that might send us into an illegal war or take away the rights of the citizens or a state (like federally universal healthcare would do).

The document was made with the ability to change because the founders knew they wouldn't be able to foresee every situation that arose. Unfortunately it also opened the door for people who couldn't give 2 shits about their intent to change and/or fuck up the whole thing.

The problems aren't insurmountable, we just need to get back to our roots, put more emphasis on original intent, and figure out exactly where the wording or allowances falls short so THEN we can shore it up and make it more solid and less ambiguous in some parts. I mean, if something in the document is being read as ambiguous, then it's fucking useless (even though it might not always have been read ambiguously).

[Thorgrim]

If you have a 2nd amendment argument, you can move it to my thread

However, in general, to say that they "made mistakes" and didn't anticipate the future accurately, is to open up a pandoras box of nullifying huge parts of the constitution

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If you have a 2nd amendment argument, you can move it to my thread

However, in general, to say that they "made mistakes" and didn't anticipate the future accurately, is to open up a pandoras box of nullifying huge parts of the constitution

I'm not saying they made mistakes, I'm saying most of the problems is old language that people want to misinterpret. Their IDEAS were spot on, but to just analyze the words of the constitution itself is irresponsible. There's meaning behind those words, and a lot more meaning than just what is written. I don't want to debate guns, but the founders certainly wanted them (I don't think anyone disagrees with that). Looking at the why should be a major part of the gun debate, but mostly people just don't care. And looking at the why should be in every constituationally questionable legislation. The judiciary tends to stick to the letter of the law...

And in the case of problems with treaties being approved by the senate NOW as opposed to before 100 years ago, that's a MAJOR thing that was changed (senators being elected) which now has created a situation that you speak of. Do you think the loophole could be used if every senator cared solely about protecting his own state rather than how well a group can sell the population on an idea? They are now elected officials which means they answer to voters. That level of politics was meant for the HoR, which is why congress doesn't have to approve of treaties, the senate does.

Anyway, the point is to pay attention to more than just the words (which is why I brought up the gun debate because people say that the original intent was to allow the military to have the guns, not the citizens... which is retarded and makes no sense whatsoever from an "original intent" standpoint). And I am all about changing words that become unclear over time... and if we make a change like the 17th, then we need to take into consideration original intent before we do it, and have some way to counteract the fallout afterwards.

[lew]

If what you're saying is true thor, why hasn't the federal government been using this loophole for a century? Why instead have they used the commerce clause?