(Quote) Charles-512043 said: You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:
You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders own beliefs were, and the second being which laws the founders delegated in the Constitution verses leaving at the state level. Only the things expressly delegated in the Constitution were left to the federal government (abortion not being one of them), and all else to the states. Presumably, the founders were all also against murder, yet they didn't include jurisdiction over murder anywhere in the Constitution. Murder has always been handled by the states. Presumably, they were against robbery, yet they didn't include any jurisdiction over robbery anywhere in the Constitution. Robbery has always been handled by the states. And on and on...
In your world, what was the point of the 10th Amendment?
This argument falls flat on its face. Under the Constitution the Federal Government does have jurisdiction over murder and robbery on Federal property and the high seas, and when those actions are committed against Federal employees anywhere. And on all those matters has co-jurisdiction with the states in many instances. It also has jurisdiction on any crime or criminal when they cross state lines.
And since the beginning of the United States under the Constitution it has, in fact, had jurisdiction on those matters as I just indicated.
The Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government having jurisdiction over the operation of banking institutions. Yet because only the Federal government has authority, under the Constitution, to regulate money and the value thereof, it has the right to regulate banks.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the right to regulate commerce between the states; it follows that it has a right to regulate a business when that business's interest cross state lines.
It appears you fail to look at what follows naturally and of necessity from the words as written and insist that only the simple meaning of the words has sway.
Now if you want to argue that the Supreme Court has improperly allowed the Federal Government to take on more and more powers under the commerce clause and the health and welfare clause, I could agree with you. However, until the Court says no, that argument has no leg to stand on.
And that comes back to the crux of the whole discussion here, or at least one of them, refusing to vote or voting for someone who has no chance to win can deny one of the primary candidates the opportunity to name members of the Court who might be more conducive to the view of a more strict interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution.
And we are at one of those key points in our History. Whoever is elected this November will, in the next 4 years, name at least two Justices to the Court. Unless Obamacare is gutted within the next 4 years, it will become so entrenched that it will be virtually impossible to do anything about it afterward.
Just like Social Security and Medicare. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, they have been a ponzi scheme from day one. Any private person or entity that put together a scheme like these, would find themselves in Prison with Bernie Madoff (sp). Both programs should have been designed like any pension plan where the participants actually had ownership and not just a promise. You are too young to remember that when SS was passed the American people were promised that any payments they received from the program would never be taxed or means tested. That promise has been broken since before you were born.
And you can go down a list of many similar things. This election is that critical.