Sins of Omission

[^_^ 5,021]

And, by the theory stated not long after it was ratified, they reserved to the States the right to interpret, alter, or abolish it. Think of your father, that I am sure once said, "I brought you into this would, and I can damn sure take you out of it!"

Nope, never. He was however quite fond of threatening to kick me out of the house.

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

And, by the theory stated not long after it was ratified, they reserved to the States the right to interpret, alter, or abolish it. Think of your father, that I am sure once said, "I brought you into this would, and I can damn sure take you out of it!"

from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison:

That the several states composing the United States of America .... constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, ....

Delegating certain definite powers to a central government sure doesn't sound like that authority is negotiable, certainly not in a strict constructionist's interpretation of it.

Edited January 7, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA986&lpg=PA986&dq=Virginia+compact+jefferson&source=bl&ots=goD5MSGxvo&sig

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

http://books.google....=goD5MSGxvo

Can you summarize for me what point you're trying to make? I just quoted Jefferson and Madison saying that the powers delegated to a central government were definite, and you give me a link?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Can you summarize for me what point you're trying to make? I just quoted Jefferson and Madison saying that the powers delegated to a central government were definite, and you give me a link?

When you use "..." to misquote an author, you should be referred to the complete work.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison:

Delegating certain definite powers to a central government sure doesn't sound like that authority is negotiable, certainly not in a strict constructionist's interpretation of it.

Only a valid point if you're willing to agree that there are "certain definite powers" delegated, and that those enumerated powers are in fact limited and constrained by the constitution, which means, in turn, that if there is not explicit granting of a particular power to the federal government, that the states retain that power...

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

Only a valid point if you're willing to agree that there are "certain definite powers" delegated, and that those enumerated powers are in fact limited and constrained by the constitution, which means, in turn, that if there is not explicit granting of a particular power to the federal government, that the states retain that power...

I'm not arguing against that. Bill, on the other hand, is claiming that the states have the ultimate power of authority. The Founders of this country and authors of our beloved Constitution had enough foresight to envision a balance of power rather than power being concentrated. The separation of powers between the federal gov't. and the states is a beautiful balance of power, but since we're on the topic of reading the Constitution, let's understand what it actually says and means, which admittingly, can be a daunting task that must ultimately be left up to the highest court in the land.

Edited January 7, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[james&olya 1,121]

the dems are jealous they didn't think of this first.

?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree. It was stupid to leave out that slaves counted as only 3/5ths of a person. The NORTH which was against slavery even at that time, did not want them counted AT ALL. Not because they did not think they were "people" but because it would have given the south, who wanted slaves counted as FULL citizens, much more power in the house and slavery would never have ended.

3/5ths was a compromise that favored the south, and slavery, 60/40. It was not a good deal for slaves who would have been better off not counted at all.

People STILL can not get it through their heads that NOT counting slaves was to the slaves ultimate advantage. What a bunch of boobs.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Only a valid point if you're willing to agree that there are "certain definite powers" delegated, and that those enumerated powers are in fact limited and constrained by the constitution, which means, in turn, that if there is not explicit granting of a particular power to the federal government, that the states retain that power...

Bingo finally. Many times congress passes laws and we are told that the states must now follow as Fed law supersedes states. It was never meant I believe that just because congress passes a law that meant the states had to obey. The constitution made it clear the Feds powers and the states

We need to revisit many programs. At one time SCOTUS ruled every Socialist program was unconstitutional. Roosevelt became incensed and threatened to pack the Supreme Court with many like minded Socialists and get them ruled the way he wanted. After the whole country became polarized SCOTUS backed down and started to rule the programs constitutional. We need to revisit the programs.

Roe vs Wade needs revisited as the original reason is supposed to be flawed. Lets revisit the way we conduct war also. Also is it really legal that the president can rule by executive authority? Lets go all out and change the constitution by amending it but not this illegal way we have. Lets look at the whole constitution and see if we want this document still to be the law of the land.