Skip to main content

View Diary: Constitutional Foundation of the US Economy: Powers are Implied Not Enumerated (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It was not supposed to be complete (0+ / 0-)

    History lessons never are.

    The diarist's focus was broad, general and informative for a wide variety of readers and thinkers.

    It is dodgy indeed, to presume to know the intentions of the Constitutional Framers or what Constitutional powers are implied or enumerated, especially when considered in a modern context; however; your comment so narrowly focused on Hamilton that I would hardly consider it a well-argued rejoiner.

    We must be forthright with the facts so that we all can come to a better understanding of where we were and where we want to be.

    Classic concern trollery indeed.

    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” ~ Charles Dickens, from Oliver Twist

    by ozsea1 on Sun Nov 20, 2011 at 11:41:23 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Please don't insult me to disparage what I've (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi

      presented and argued here...

      Classic concern trollery indeed.

      Hon, I'm a Progressive Libertarian... Look me up here, read my diaries...you might just eat some crow when you're done...

      As a historian, I will not argue facts, just an analysis that does not include them all...that's called whitewashing...our history is not "warm and fuzzy".

      My focus on Hamilton was due to the diarists claims and premise that it was because of Hamilton Washington did x,y & z.  Expanding that incomplete analysis to equate it to today.

      As for this:

      It is dodgy indeed, to presume to know the intentions of the Constitutional Framers or what Constitutional powers are implied or enumerated, especially when considered in a modern context

      Nope, they were pretty damn clear in their writings, their correspondence and that document they wrote called the constitution.

      The "in the modern context" is no different today as it was 200 yrs ago.  It's beliefs such as yours that leads to people being arrested for filming police, indefinite detentions, waterboarding, secret surveillance, secret courts, secret laws and the killing of American citizens extrajudicially ... Whereby the rule of law is "re-interpreted" to mean whatever those in power wish it to mean.

      If you want to re-define something, sobeit, convince me and the majority of Americans that your definition is correct and then change the constitution to reflect such.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:15:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But we already had the Welfare clause (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        I think the Bill of Rights, although one could argue that they have been abused by both the government and the people, are necessary to combat abuses in the name of the "Welfare", "Prosperity", "Defence", etc. Hamilton says "why say they can't do what they have no power to do anyway", which I would respond to by saying "why assume that these 'men of reason' would not find said powers in the existing Constitution?"

        Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:12:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

        As a student of American history and having suffered many a self-righeous professor, I know that history instructors rarely agree and will vociferously defend their pov to the death, as it were.

        In my opinion, be it ever so humble, the terms "Progressive" and "Libertarian" are mutually exclusive, because, broadly speaking so as not to get into the weeds, Progressives favor people over property and Libertarians the opposite. I suspected your libertarian leanings when you so painstakingly defended Hamilton and then obliquely critzed FDR's New Deal:

        You failed to mention that FDR's "New Deal" was continually being struck down by the Supreme Court, including provisions against child labor laws.

        So, although your comment was couched in very scholarly language, your libertarian biases are plain, furthermore, your comment was just not convincing, instructor.

        “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” ~ Charles Dickens, from Oliver Twist

        by ozsea1 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:27:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rofl... the one thing that makes us truly free is (0+ / 0-)

          the power to define the terms themselves.

          Progressive=equality for all, social justice, economic justice.
          Libertarian= individual liberties cannot be subjugated by the tyranny of democracy (tyranny of the majority).

          Put them together and we can do anything we wish as long as we either follow the constitution or change it when necessary.

          I wasn't painstakingly defending Hamilton, the diarist used Hamilton as the basis for their argument, ignoring what he actually said about the scope and power the constitution was granting to the central government.

          As for FDR getting his new deal handed back to him, ignoring that he padded the court and then tried to unsuccessfully expand the court to suit his desires is dishonest history telling.

          What I'd ask the diarist to do, be honest about these things...note that it took FDR festering public dissent against our judicial system to "make them change their tune". Were their original arguments invalid?

          This is the point here, it was never so "black and white" and still isn't today.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:51:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You are missing the point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      Hamiltons point is that the constitution was the process by which people grant power to their government. It is not a system by which the people limit the power of the government.

      Having the rights/powers of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights, with government assuming the balance of powers is considerably less free than enumerating the rights/powers of government in the Constitution with the people assuming the balance.

      The diarist spends the majority of the diary extolling the things that the government has done with its powers, but never touches on the abuses and ever expanding reach of implied powers.

      •  Okay, maybe we're misunderstanding each other (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi

        The constitution granted limited powers to a central government.  The government can only do x but not y.

        When a bill of rights is added, Hamilton points out how this changes the very nature of the agreement we the people are making with each other.  We are setting up an equal party to us...government being an equal to the people themselves.  And he points out how the Magna Carta was the concessions the king was forced to make. When the people became equals in the welding of sovereignty.  This is why he believed it was extremely dangerous to include the BoR.

        The government cannot assume that which it has not been granted...to do so, this interpretation/claim is what is called the Napoleonic code. We do not have a system of government or law that is Napoleonic based but Common Law based.

        As for this:

        The diarist spends the majority of the diary extolling the things that the government has done with its powers,

        Agreed, but justifies those powers by erroneously claiming something that is not historically accurate or complete.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 07:49:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site