Major victory for ACORN and the Constitution

[Dan J 277]

2. I found it cute how the "Constitution" was linked to this..... as if the Constitution has any real meaning any more.

Wow. I have no particular opinion regarding ACORN. But I'm curious about this remark. You don't believe the Constitution has any "real meaning" in our society?

I absolutely believe the Constitution as it was intended has been long trashed.

We see this at every turn in Washington.

The latest example is the federal Gov. requiring people to buy product from Insurance companies concerning Health.... care to explain what part of the Constitution gives Authority for that.

Healthcare in the 1700's was hope and pray you didn't die. There is not anything preventing or providing the government from setting up a national healthcare system. The Constitution does allow the government to collect taxes for the general welfare of the united states, which could most definitely include healthcare.

[Safiya&Samir 0]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

[Danno 1,228]

2. I found it cute how the "Constitution" was linked to this..... as if the Constitution has any real meaning any more.

Wow. I have no particular opinion regarding ACORN. But I'm curious about this remark. You don't believe the Constitution has any "real meaning" in our society?

I absolutely believe the Constitution as it was intended has been long trashed.

We see this at every turn in Washington.

The latest example is the federal Gov. requiring people to buy product from Insurance companies concerning Health.... care to explain what part of the Constitution gives Authority for that.

Healthcare in the 1700's was hope and pray you didn't die. There is not anything preventing or providing the government from setting up a national healthcare system. The Constitution does allow the government to collect taxes for the general welfare of the united states, which could most definitely include healthcare.

What would be the point of writing out a list, "limiting" what the Federal Gov't can do if in fact anything can be done under a "general welfare" concept...( thanks for proving my exact point.

Q: SInce healthcare would "most definitely" be covered as is food stamps, planned parenthood, education etc, WHAT WOULD NOT (in your view) under the "general welfare" cause?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You have to have sh!t for brains to think this is a good thing.

[nowhereman 1]

You have to have sh!t for brains to think this is a good thing.

I understand the OP's point, but I just wouldn't have used ACORN as an example of bypassing due process (i.e. because they are not innocent).

[scandal 951]

2. I found it cute how the "Constitution" was linked to this..... as if the Constitution has any real meaning any more.

Wow. I have no particular opinion regarding ACORN. But I'm curious about this remark. You don't believe the Constitution has any "real meaning" in our society?

I absolutely believe the Constitution as it was intended has been long trashed.

We see this at every turn in Washington.

The latest example is the federal Gov. requiring people to buy product from Insurance companies concerning Health.... care to explain what part of the Constitution gives Authority for that.

I disagree with you. I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights show up in our daily lives all the time, and are MOST relevant.

Case in point: Your (generally - the "Right") cherished Second Amendment.

I would personally rather see more restrictive gun control laws in this country.

However the Supreme Court has ruled that the Washington DC gun law, if not others, are in violation of the Second Amendment. They've clearly interpreted it as an individual and not a communal right to maintain an armed militia.

I don't have to like the ruling, but I do respect it as part of how our system of government operates. For better or for worse, we all now live in a society whose gun laws are influenced directly by this recent interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It's a common and elementary mistake to believe that if a specific action isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that it is inherently unconstitutional. That argument has been used against income taxes, federal education policy, environmental legislation, and now health care (see your comments above). This is simply not the intent of the Constitution, and never was. The Constitution provides a framework for how government is to operate and the checks and balances between branches of government, between the federal and state governments, and between government and private citizens. It gives Congress free reign to legislate pretty much anything it wishes that does not violate the Constitution (as interpreted by the courts), and it gives the Executive Branch fairly wide leeway to regulate even without Congressional legislation (e.g. the recent EPA pronouncement on CO2).

To say that the Constitution "has been trashed" - no way, man. It's at work every day, and at every turn.

[slim 1,533]

care to explain what part of the Constitution gives Authority for that.

My Congressman said it was the "welfare clause" ("provide for the general welfare") that necessitates Congress to take action to ensure health care as a basic right for all Americans. He went on to say the founders left it "very vague on purpose" so we could one day interpret it to mean more than just "general welfare" and to mean things like health care.

I didn't get to speak to him directly, but my question has to be "if the welfare clause was left open on purpose so we could now interpret it to mean whatever we desired, why was the 2nd Amendment writtne in so descriptive a manner and intention yet we're now interpreting it to mean something totally different?"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

So you're saying ACORN should get $200 million PER YEAR to "organize" communities yet Blackwater should get less to conduct wartime operations in a hostile environment?

What you're saying here is akin to "we should give folks on welfare more money because we gave million dollar business grants to businesses that were actually producing products or services."

ACORN doesn't actually do anything. Blackwater has done quite a bit.

Case in point: Your (generally - the "Right") cherished Second Amendment.

I would personally rather see more restrictive gun control laws in this country.

However the Supreme Court has ruled that the Washington DC gun law, if not others, are in violation of the Second Amendment. They've clearly interpreted it as an individual and not a communal right to maintain an armed militia.

I don't have to like the ruling, but I do respect it as part of how our system of government operates. For better or for worse, we all now live in a society whose gun laws are influenced directly by this recent interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It's amazing to me that they somehow interpreted an individual right out of that Amendment but didn't say anything about a militia. The word "militia" is in the 2nd Amendment. "Individual" is nowhere. They also didn't say anything about the "shall not be infringed" part, but then again, they'll be doing the same thing all over again here in the next few years.

Doubtful this particular issue will changed much by any ruling the SC makes.

[Danno 1,228]

2. I found it cute how the "Constitution" was linked to this..... as if the Constitution has any real meaning any more.

Wow. I have no particular opinion regarding ACORN. But I'm curious about this remark. You don't believe the Constitution has any "real meaning" in our society?

I absolutely believe the Constitution as it was intended has been long trashed.

We see this at every turn in Washington.

The latest example is the federal Gov. requiring people to buy product from Insurance companies concerning Health.... care to explain what part of the Constitution gives Authority for that.

I disagree with you. I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights show up in our daily lives all the time, and are MOST relevant.

Case in point: Your (generally - the "Right") cherished Second Amendment.

I would personally rather see more restrictive gun control laws in this country.

However the Supreme Court has ruled that the Washington DC gun law, if not others, are in violation of the Second Amendment. They've clearly interpreted it as an individual and not a communal right to maintain an armed militia.

I don't have to like the ruling, but I do respect it as part of how our system of government operates. For better or for worse, we all now live in a society whose gun laws are influenced directly by this recent interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It's a common and elementary mistake to believe that if a specific action isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that it is inherently unconstitutional. That argument has been used against income taxes, federal education policy, environmental legislation, and now health care (see your comments above). This is simply not the intent of the Constitution, and never was. The Constitution provides a framework for how government is to operate and the checks and balances between branches of government, between the federal and state governments, and between government and private citizens. It gives Congress free reign to legislate pretty much anything it wishes that does not violate the Constitution (as interpreted by the courts), and it gives the Executive Branch fairly wide leeway to regulate even without Congressional legislation (e.g. the recent EPA pronouncement on CO2).

To say that the Constitution "has been trashed" - no way, man. It's at work every day, and at every turn.

Well I still disagree and as you failed to explain what "general welfare" DO NOT INCLUDE, am I to assume.... anything and everything can be rationalized under this mask,,,,, though the Constitution Clearly leaves these powers to States?

The Bill of Rights Limits the Federal GOVT.

In the same way speed limit signs limit drivers.

For what purpose is a speed limit sign if drivers can For sake of the "general welfare", disregard it?

With this loop-hole, if I am late to work I should be allowed to speed, who would deny it's for the general welfare that I keep my job?

If I were late taking the kid to Boy Scouts, I too could bless myself a "general welfare" exemption... after all Boy Scout mould children into citizens, in fact, it would be difficult to not find a reason to by pass the limits of the sign, I think you might agree.

But the sad truth is, the Speed Limit sign means exactly that.... ohh if the Constitution only carried so much weight.

As for the second Amendment, I have always believed it is exactly what it says..... a limit on congress not states.

But here we are pretending.. all rights and controls come from DC.

LEt me try another question

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

[slim 1,533]

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

I believe if those "terrorists" were still alive today, they would've long overthrown their government.

[scandal 951]

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

If those signers were strong Federalists, who championed a central government with broad taxing and legislative powers, as did Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and even George Washington - they most certainly would signed it, and pushed for its ratification by the states - as indeed they did.

On the other hand, if they were champions of states rights and a weak central government, as were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - the founders of the Democrat-Republican party, then they would still have signed onto the Constitution albeit reluctantly, as they did, fearing that a central government would lead to tyranny.

The debate you and I are having over the powers of the central government is not a new one. It's as old as the country itself. There are advocates on both sides, and always have been. The Constitution itself - and the federal government it created - reflects that debate. The Constitution is hardly "irrelevant" today, just because some have always been unhappy with some of its provisions. That's the nature of compromise in a democratic society - we don't always get everything we want, but overall the system works pretty well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

If those signers were strong Federalists, who championed a central government with broad taxing and legislative powers, as did Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and even George Washington - they most certainly would signed it, and pushed for its ratification by the states - as indeed they did.

On the other hand, if they were champions of states rights and a weak central government, as were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - the founders of the Democrat-Republican party, then they would still have signed onto the Constitution albeit reluctantly, as they did, fearing that a central government would lead to tyranny.

The debate you and I are having over the powers of the central government is not a new one. It's as old as the country itself. There are advocates on both sides, and always have been. The Constitution itself - and the federal government it created - reflects that debate. The Constitution is hardly "irrelevant" today, just because some have always been unhappy with some of its provisions. That's the nature of compromise in a democratic society - we don't always get everything we want, but overall the system works pretty well.

Word.

[Danno 1,228]

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

If those signers were strong Federalists, who championed a central government with broad taxing and legislative powers, as did Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and even George Washington - they most certainly would signed it, and pushed for its ratification by the states - as indeed they did.

On the other hand, if they were champions of states rights and a weak central government, as were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - the founders of the Democrat-Republican party, then they would still have signed onto the Constitution albeit reluctantly, as they did, fearing that a central government would lead to tyranny.

The debate you and I are having over the powers of the central government is not a new one. It's as old as the country itself. There are advocates on both sides, and always have been. The Constitution itself - and the federal government it created - reflects that debate. The Constitution is hardly "irrelevant" today, just because some have always been unhappy with some of its provisions. That's the nature of compromise in a democratic society - we don't always get everything we want, but overall the system works pretty well.

On credit it does.

[mawilson 2,133]

Congress has impermissibly singled out plaintiffs for punishment[/b]."

So then selectively punishing bankers by taxing their bonuses at a higher rate must be also unconstitutional?

Congress isn't the one doing that. It's the pay czar Kenneth Feinberg who's part of the Executive Branch.

Tomato, tomahto. Is the Executive Branch above the law?

[scandal 951]

Q: Do you believe the Constitution would have ever been ratified had the signers realized how much power the Central GoV would assume?

If those signers were strong Federalists, who championed a central government with broad taxing and legislative powers, as did Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and even George Washington - they most certainly would signed it, and pushed for its ratification by the states - as indeed they did.

On the other hand, if they were champions of states rights and a weak central government, as were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - the founders of the Democrat-Republican party, then they would still have signed onto the Constitution albeit reluctantly, as they did, fearing that a central government would lead to tyranny.

The debate you and I are having over the powers of the central government is not a new one. It's as old as the country itself. There are advocates on both sides, and always have been. The Constitution itself - and the federal government it created - reflects that debate. The Constitution is hardly "irrelevant" today, just because some have always been unhappy with some of its provisions. That's the nature of compromise in a democratic society - we don't always get everything we want, but overall the system works pretty well.

On credit it does.

Danno, you obviously aren't prepared to much effort into a real discussion here, ergo a response as flippant as "On credit it does."

All you've managed to point out is that you really don't have much of a sense of history, do you?

We've been running federal deficits ever since Hamilton advocated them to underwrite the Revolutionary War debts and the growing establishment of the Federal government in the 1780s and 90s. All the growth and success this country has seen has occurred as a consequence of a government that has issued bonds to underwrite that growth.

Congress has impermissibly singled out plaintiffs for punishment[/b]."

So then selectively punishing bankers by taxing their bonuses at a higher rate must be also unconstitutional?

Congress isn't the one doing that. It's the pay czar Kenneth Feinberg who's part of the Executive Branch.

Tomato, tomahto. Is the Executive Branch above the law?

Of course it is. Just ask ####### Cheney