"There's nothing in the constitution for most of the stuff that we do" - Rep. Clyburn

[ThoughtCriminal]

Incredible statements made to Judge Napolitano by rep. james clyburn.

[V65Magnafan]

It's time for the good people of South Carolina to vote this fool out. Clyburn isn't a lawyer, thank goodness, but he was, incredibly, a history teacher.

I think this audio should make its way to South Carolina. Here might be a good place to start, or maybe the Carolina area in AR-15.

http://carolinashootersforum.com/index.php

[Morel42]

Incredible statements made to Judge Napolitano by rep. james clyburn.

Some good points.. Some short sighted.

Health care
Education System
Infrastructure
Regulation

Alot of things that make our very country here today that are not in the Constitution. I'll even go so far that if some presidents haven't errr... ummm.. *cough* "bent" what the literal meaning of the words that it contains.. We wouldn't be here now.

Most of us wouldn't be alive..

You can't make huge generalized statements if you don't understand History and how we got here.

Lincoln.. The Big boy of totally ignoring the Constitution.. Yes the reasons he did it were logical, and he had very valid reasons that most likely resulted in a positive manner.. However it was pretty much totally and completely illegal for him for force the states to stay together.. (This is a whole argument in of itself so I'll move on)

FDR.. If he wouldn't have blocked Japanese Oil shipments they wouldn't have attacked when they did. If he wouldn't have supported the UK as he did they would have fallen to Germany and then Russia may have fallen, leaving the USA standing alone.


*Pocket Protector Smacks Morel on the back of the head*

Ow! Sorry damnit.... I'm ranting off point again..

What I'm trying to say to people who support a literal interpretation of the Constitution as it was originally written as the only law of the land, really need to study the reasons things are they way they are now (good or bad) Without that BASIC Understanding, you cannot intelligently argue the subject.

[archangel689]

rep. james clyburn, yes the constitution is a living document.... meaning that it can be changed THROUGH AMENDMENTS.... if you want to make a change, make an amendment mr. clyburn....

The problem is that you will never get the super majority needed to do so, so you come up with this obscure definition of "living document" to justify doing whatever you damn well please.

[Morel42]

rep. james clyburn, yes the constitution is a living document.... meaning that it can be changed THROUGH AMENDMENTS.... if you want to make a change, make an amendment mr. clyburn....

The problem is that you will never get the super majority needed to do so, so you come up with this obscure definition of "living document" to justify doing whatever you damn well please.

Actually there is another way to add an amendment.. The states can call a constitutional Congress I believe..

Also, here's the problem.

There many view opinions and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.. The Courts have been the one to decide what each one means..

[Eugene V. Debs]

Some good points.. Some short sighted.
Health care
Education System
Infrastructure
Regulation

Alot of things that make our very country here today that are not in the Constitution.

All of those things are provided for in Art I under the "general welfare" clause, the "interstate commerce" and the "necessary and proper", or so-called "elastic clause"

[Helter]

Some good points.. Some short sighted.

Health care
Education System
Infrastructure
Regulation

Alot of things that make our very country here today that are not in the Constitution. I'll even go so far that if some presidents haven't errr... ummm.. *cough* "bent" what the literal meaning of the words that it contains.. We wouldn't be here now.

Most of us wouldn't be alive..

You can't make huge generalized statements if you don't understand History and how we got here.

Lincoln.. The Big boy of totally ignoring the Constitution.. Yes the reasons he did it were logical, and he had very valid reasons that most likely resulted in a positive manner.. However it was pretty much totally and completely illegal for him for force the states to stay together.. (This is a whole argument in of itself so I'll move on)

FDR.. If he wouldn't have blocked Japanese Oil shipments they wouldn't have attacked when they did. If he wouldn't have supported the UK as he did they would have fallen to Germany and then Russia may have fallen, leaving the USA standing alone.


*Pocket Protector Smacks Morel on the back of the head*

Ow! Sorry damnit.... I'm ranting off point again..

What I'm trying to say to people who support a literal interpretation of the Constitution as it was originally written as the only law of the land, really need to study the reasons things are they way they are now (good or bad) Without that BASIC Understanding, you cannot intelligently argue the subject.

This is just a fancy way or arguing that the ends justify the means...
I could make my neighborhood, and the world in general, a better place by shooting my neighbors gang banging, drug dealing grandson. That doesn't mean that vigilantism on my part should be tolerated or justified.
The fact is, ignoring the constitution could in some cases turn out good, it could also turn out bad. Only time can tell what the final consequences of any action are. In every case though, it debases our system of governance, and makes it just that much harder to control or restrain further abuses.

[-JD-]

OK, I can't see the video here, so with regard to that I am operating blind, but ...

All of those things are provided for in Art I under the "general welfare" clause, the "interstate commerce" and the "necessary and proper", or so-called "elastic clause"

So, I guess that begs the question(s):

Does that mean that there are no constitutional limits to the power of the federal government?

Or only those limits that are specifically listed?

[archangel689]

All of those things are provided for in Art I under the "general welfare" clause, the "interstate commerce" and the "necessary and proper", or so-called "elastic clause"

While some may claim that the term "general welfare," in an authorization to raise revenue in the opening paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8, could justify such Federal involvement; that notion will not stand review in context. There is little "general" about health services. They are inherently personal; inherently peculiar to the particular nature, needs and afflictions of an individual being served. Even a cursory glance at the other specific powers & functions addressed in the Section will reveal nothing functionally analogous to such overreach. All deal with functions that serve a purpose common to the interests of the whole people, in each of the several States--truly general in nature, never particular to those who suffer from a personal problem, such as an inability to afford something (here, insurance). Considering, also, the direct restriction on the taxing power in Art. I, Sec. 9, to prevent the use of taxation as a leveler of wealth & achievement; it is clear, indeed, that a program intended to equalize the medical resources of individuals, was neither authorized nor imagined. [Note: While the XVIth Amendment did change the Constitutional ban on a graduated income tax, it is confined to the power to tax. It does not extend powers or purposes, for which spending is authorized. Again, there is no suggestion of a power or function to subsidize any individual civilian's access to expensive health care.]

[eXceLon]

If the federal government was supposed to do nothing but that which was explicitly set forth by the constitution, then why even bother having a legislature at all? They wouldn't be able to make any laws at all, aside from occasionally amending the constitution which is a slow and laborious process.