• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The World Health Organization calls for decriminalization of most drugs

tjcmd said:
I believe the Constitution was written to limit the federal government. Do you think anything Congress or the President dream up is constitutional?
Click to expand...

I don't see the declaration that "the Constitution was written to limit the federal government" anywhere in the Preamble which lays out some general purposes of the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I believe the Constitution was established to permanently enshrine a collective body of rights in contrast with the British model of an uncodified constitution. I do not believe that it was written to "limit the federal government" beyond the contextual concept that the Constitution was largely in part a pushback of British reign.
 
tjcmd said:
I believe the Constitution was written to limit the federal government. Do you think anything Congress or the President dream up is constitutional?
Click to expand...

:laugh: priceless
 
We the people, in order to limit the federal government, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It would certainly be easier for 4th graders to memorize this one!
 
Deacon923 said:
It's all well and good to complain that your tax dollars are being used for purposes you don't like. Before you equate "I don't like it" with "unconstitutional", it would probably be wise to reflect on the fact that the US Constitution set up a representative system of government, your duly elected representatives chose to tax you for these things, and they all rest on over 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence (by courts created by Article III of the US Constitution) that has approved most of them as, in fact, being constitutional. No doubt tj and his arch-libertarian friends, with their direct mind-link to the Founding Fathers, have a much better idea of what is "constitutional" than the Constitutionally-created groups I just listed - or maybe not, and a little perspective and humility is in order.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution does not allow duly elected representatives to ignore the US Constitution. There would be no reason to have a Constitution if that were true.
 
tjcmd said:
The US Constitution does not allow duly elected representatives to ignore the US Constitution. There would be no reason to have a Constitution if that were true.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. So what's your argument that providing tax dollars to welfare programs is somehow unconstitutional?
 
This is what tj and jh are really, really good at. Changing the subject to welfare.
 
There are plenty of unconstitutional things going on in this country that need to be challenged and stopped. The TSA, the militarized Border Patrol being given extra-constitutional search and seizure powers 100 miles from the border, the use of drones to kill American citizens without a trial, the NSA, stop and frisk, most of the Patriot Act - the list goes on. The income tax and the social safety net were litigated and found to be constitutional 3 or 4 generations ago. Crying "Unconstitutional!" on these issues because you don't like paying taxes is obtuse, and worse, it cheapens, weakens, and obfuscates the arguments that libertarians need to be making about very serious violations of the Constitution that are going on around us every day.
 
Deacon923 said:
There are plenty of unconstitutional things going on in this country that need to be challenged and stopped. The TSA, the militarized Border Patrol being given extra-constitutional search and seizure powers 100 miles from the border, the use of drones to kill American citizens without a trial, the NSA, stop and frisk, most of the Patriot Act - the list goes on. The income tax and the social safety net were litigated and found to be constitutional 3 or 4 generations ago. Crying "Unconstitutional!" on these issues because you don't like paying taxes is obtuse, and worse, it cheapens, weakens, and obfuscates the arguments that libertarians need to be making about very serious violations of the Constitution that are going on around us every day.
Click to expand...

Jesus this just needs to be copied and pasted every time one of these clowns makes this argument.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm interested how welfare doesn't qualify as general welfare.
Click to expand...

Congress could construe anything to qualify as "general welfare." Is there something you can think of that they could tax me for that you would consider to be outside the limits of "general welfare?"
 
Deacon923 said:
There are plenty of unconstitutional things going on in this country that need to be challenged and stopped. The TSA, the militarized Border Patrol being given extra-constitutional search and seizure powers 100 miles from the border, the use of drones to kill American citizens without a trial, the NSA, stop and frisk, most of the Patriot Act - the list goes on. The income tax and the social safety net were litigated and found to be constitutional 3 or 4 generations ago. Crying "Unconstitutional!" on these issues because you don't like paying taxes is obtuse, and worse, it cheapens, weakens, and obfuscates the arguments that libertarians need to be making about very serious violations of the Constitution that are going on around us every day.
Click to expand...

If Congress and the President can force me to pay someone else's bills they can certainly force you to pay for the drone execution of people they call threats to US security. You can't cry "constitutional" just because you happen to agree with one particular unconstitutional function.
 
tjcmd said:
If Congress and the President can force me to pay someone else's bills they can certainly force you to pay for the drone execution of people they call threats to US security. You can't cry "constitutional" just because you happen to agree with one particular unconstitutional function.
Click to expand...

What??

You're handpicking what you want the govt to pay for and not pay for yourself!
 
tjcmd said:
If Congress and the President can force me to pay someone else's bills they can certainly force you to pay for the drone execution of people they call threats to US security. You can't cry "constitutional" just because you happen to agree with one particular unconstitutional function.
Click to expand...

What part of national defense isn't constitutional? It's at the heart of the US Constitution.
 
tjcmd said:
If Congress and the President can force me to pay someone else's bills they can certainly force you to pay for the drone execution of people they call threats to US security. You can't cry "constitutional" just because you happen to agree with one particular unconstitutional function.
Click to expand...

The government can force you to "pay your bills." This is uncontroversial and has been settled for decades.

The government can then take that revenue and spend it within limits defined by the constitution. Welfare falls within those limits, other expenditures arguably do not.

The fact that some expenditures are arguably unconstitutional has no bearing on the constitutionality of taxing U.S. citizens to raise revenue.

These are incredibly simple concepts.
 
tjcmd said:
If Congress and the President can force me to pay someone else's bills they can certainly force you to pay for the drone execution of people they call threats to US security. You can't cry "constitutional" just because you happen to agree with one particular unconstitutional function.
Click to expand...

This isn't what he said at all. He said that using the drones is unconstitutional when killing Americans without a trial. He doesn't dispute here that the government can "force you to pay for the drone(s)..." and I doubt he would dispute it provided that the Constitution explicitly provides that taxes may be levied to provide for the "common defence."

He's stating that the constitutional violation is killing the Americans without a trial, not that the government cannot force you to pay for drones through taxes.
 
RJKarl said:
What part of national defense isn't constitutional? It's at the heart of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not allow the US government to kill it's citizens without due process. Having a bureaucrat designate you as a threat is not due process.
 
tjcmd said:
The Constitution does not allow the US government to kill it's citizens without due process. Having a bureaucrat designate you as a threat is not due process.
Click to expand...

Well you're the one who obfuscated the entire argument in your last post in a ridiculously confusing manner.

What exactly is your point? Can you rearticulate it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top