purple_persuader
- 22 comments
- 1 likes given
- 3 likes received
Bio not provided
@onetenther As much as I respect Natelson and have learned so much from reading him, he really errs on this. The US constitution is dependent on granted powers, and as there is no power granted to ban nukes, such a thing would be left to the states.
@DarylLloydDavis I agree. It's somewhat strange to declare that when the contract of the USC is being violated, part of that violation is somehow right.
Because the Court failed to examine the sources fully, it missed the nature of the distinction.
That's charming, yes, let us all believe that the court actually meant to make sure they decided properly, as opposed to say, being political creatures who knowingly help maintain the fraud of legitimacy.
Um, something wrong with link in the 2nd paragraph.
This is not to mention, that even if the congress had passed this law without constitutional authority, it was the same one that passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and could hardly be looked to as being constitutionally sound.
@dereksheriff Derek, I would also recommend Louis Fishers work "Presidential War Power" as an aid to better understanding just how limited the President's power is.
@ElectionsAreRigged As I already stated dumb ass, the very proceedings of the congress in debating the first 10 (accepted amendments) show the intent of the bill of rights.
Yes moron, the preamble to the Bill of Rights proves what the intent was, to limit the powers of the Federal government.USC? The USC was a federal constitution, not a national one, so unless specifally limiting the states (as done in Article 1, section 10), any amendment would only apply to the FEDERAL government. Do you not understand that the USC was enacting a federal government, and not a national one?
Here's your dumb ass fallacy..you assert that "In all criminal prosecution" proves that the entirety of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, but AGAIN DUMB ASS, the states are specifiically mentioned, so that is known that it is the states that this is applicable to. Further, the purpose of this was not to interfere in internal police matters, but to ensure that those outside of a state would have equal just same as those within a state.
Have you bothered to study the federal convention debates, the state ratification debates, to study the legal practices of the day to understand the context within which the USC was framed and ratified? I doubt it. I have.
@ElectionsAreRigged More like too dense to get what I pointed out above. I'll say it again, and if you're not lazy you can read the records from the congressional record....these amendments know as the Bill of Rights were amending the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, and ensuring that further safeguards were in place against abuses from the FEDERAL government. They would have to have specifically mentioned the states as being affected as does the USC elsewhere.
This is not to mention, that in order to effect the 14th, first Lincoln had to throw out the USC which says that the powers are delegated, which means they can be withdrawn, then to ignore the fact that certain states forced other states to agree to the 14th amendment under threat of force...meaning the USC has been in effect since 1861.
@ElectionsAreRigged Preamble to the Bill of RIghts...
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
This is hard because you make so many errors, but nonetheless I will limit myself to the obviousness of the preamble; the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the FEDERAL government did not overreach. The "further declaratory and restrictive" clauses were added to what?? The USC. So all the amendments apply to what? The federal government.
Make paper legal tender? That's somewhat unclear, and no I haven't read your coinage clause article yet, I will. Nonetheless, "dollar" is used in the USC, so we know that the "dollar" already exists, and is not some arbitrary name for money, but a known, measured amount, as in the Spanish silver dollar prominently used at the time. We can also see that the states are prohibited from making anything but silver and gold as tender for payment of debts, how then could the federal government override this by issuing fiat money? Now could paper receipts for the money be issued? Sure.
As for a limited or unlimited CC, really what's to prevent the States from an unlimited CC, amending is amending, and it's their choice if enough desire it. I think sometimes you let your conservatism interpret the USC, rather than your scholarship. Saw that particularly in your article concerning the use of the Commerce Clause to prohibit certain products.
Libertarian centralizer is an oxymoron, nuff said.
"at least as currently interpreted"..This is your saving grace, now write the article articulating the fact that the USC grants no coercive power over people (or businesses if you like) to tell them what they must do for others.
WilliamSchooler Please shut up. You ramble on, and make no sense, and it's over and over and over.
While I generally find myself intellectually edified by Mr. Natelsons scholarship and intellect, and consider him one of the top scholars on the USC, if not the best, I find his argument here rather flawed.
He states above that the prohibitive power was to be used to benefit the states by equalizing conditions (rectify an unfavorable balance of trade) with other nations, but then infers that any product could be prohibited. Following their fiduciary nature as being confined to reasonable governance, how then could any product be prohibited if it is not to benefit commerce? If the purpose then becomes to police personal conduct it is clearly a violation of the tenth amendment. If there is no trade imbalance being corrected how could it then be claimed that both the 9th and 10th amendments may be overridden and the congress assume power of people's choice of consumption or whatnot?
JamesP.Delaney It's not error, it's intentional disregard and unfamiliarity with the instrument which he is claiming to want to abide by. He himself was not someone in occasional error, but a contributor to the growth of the federal government in violation of the limits imposed by the USC.
JamesP.Delaney Newt?? Seriously?? I read his white paper, which only illustrated hit unfitness to be president, with all the constitutional distortions in it. For instance he talked about amendments needing to be approved by the congress. Then he talked about the president being able to make war, when it is the congress. In this regard, during the federal convention on Aug. 17th, they specifically addressed making sure that the executive would not be able to accumulate power by having the power of war. Hamilton confirms this in Federalist 69.
Newt also voted for the Dept. of Ed. in 79. I could go on about his clear unfamiliarity with the USC, but Newt is only giving sound bites for shallow thinkers to swallow. Also, a judicial position is not to be eliminated because the judge is bad, but because it is unnecessary, so he's clearly spinning the bull.
A source please for Hamilton's unpublished notes.
WilliamSchooler Listen, you've got to get out of your nationalistic false narrative. Bob Greenslade corrected you once before, and so now I'm going to attempt to do so.
The US constitution was not put together to keep liberty in place, it's main purpose was to provide a larger power to provide representation among the states for commerce and defense. It primarily dealt with state governments and foreign governments, while having little to do with "the people", other than say counterfeiting or treason. It was state constitutions that were supposed to protect liberty, not that they really did.
That you continue to put forward this opinion shows that you have spent little, if any time, actually studying the USC. If you would just bother looking at the clauses, you would see their primary concern is the states, and that which enables the states to have mutual protection and an enabling agent for free commerce.
The shame here is that now time and money will have to be spent dealing with this stupidity.