Menu
New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The era of Justice* Gorsuch begins

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trapdoor

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
As you know, I didn't say that presidents can make such appointments without the Senate's consent. I did say that the Framers intended that the Senate either advise or consent - say yea or nay. The Framers did not envision that partisan wackjobs would seek to negate the presidential power to fill seats by refusing outright to even consider any nominees. Making it even worse, the Senate did not even make such a decision as to Obama's nominee - only Mitch McConnell did. A constitutional abomination.
Click to expand...
The Senate provided advice -- that advice was that it would not provide its consent. It has no further mandate to say yea, nay or any other three letter word..
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
trapdoor said:
The Senate provided advice -- that advice was that it would not provide its consent. It has no further mandate to say yea, nay or any other three letter word..
Click to expand...
The same old, tired fiction.

Again, the Senate made no decision. They voted on nothing.

And you still pretend that the Framers drafted a clause meaning that the Senate provides "advice" as to nominees when it refuses to even consider them. The clause clearly refers to advice and consent on a particular nominee. By definition, that is not done when a president is told not to bother sending any nominees, because they will not be considered.
 
T

trapdoor

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
The same old, tired fiction.

Again, the Senate made no decision. They voted on nothing.

And you still pretend that the Framers drafted a clause meaning that the Senate provides "advice" as to nominees when it refuses to even consider them. The clause clearly refers to advice and consent on a particular nominee. By definition, that is not done when a president is told not to bother sending any nominees, because they will not be considered.
Click to expand...
The Senate doesn't have to vote. The Senate doesn't have to vote. The Senate doesn't have to vote. If a bill (and a request for an appointment by the president IS a bill) isn't voted out of committee, then the Senate doesn't vote on it. The consent is STILL denied. By definition, telling the president "we won't consider your nominees" is advising him of the fact that nominations aren't being considered and that consent won't be forthcoming.
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
trapdoor said:
The Senate doesn't have to vote. The Senate doesn't have to vote. The Senate doesn't have to vote. If a bill (and a request for an appointment by the president IS a bill) isn't voted out of committee, then the Senate doesn't vote on it. The consent is STILL denied. By definition, telling the president "we won't consider your nominees" is advising him of the fact that nominations aren't being considered and that consent won't be forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Now you're trying to change the subject, which is the advise and consent clause as to presidential nominees.

A sure sign that you're outta gas.
 
Craig

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
trapdoor said:
There is a difference between rights retained by the people, and the authority of the government to help the people achieve those rights.

Suffice it to say I think you have the Constitution inverted. The goal of the people writing it (apparently aside from Hamilton), was to provide the government with more authority than it had held under the Article of Confederation -- while still confining it to limits, giving it its stated authorities and no more. The general welfare is not a stated authority -- it's a caption to the stated authority according to Madison, who was the person who put the phrase into the document.

If general welfare is a plenary power, why then is there a need to state that Congress has the power to tax? Couldn't congress merely say, "Taxation is good for the general welfare," and then create taxes? Even Hamilton said government was limited, writing in the Federalist 84 that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."

If your reading of general welfare prevailed, then this statement by Hamilton would be provable wrong, as Congress could (without any enabling authority) declare that restraining the liberty of the press was good for the general welfare, and would have the exact authority under the general welfare clause that Hamilton said it lacked, even with the presence of that clause.

But this is an example of pure politics and the way in which. When he wanted the government limited, he said its limits were strict. Later, when he was in administration and wanted more power to "do things" he discovered the "plenary" nature of general welfare.
Click to expand...
Craig said:
as long as their actions were dedicated to the mission statement.
Click to expand...
Not willy nilly...within the parameters of general and/or common benefit.

The Preamble is the mission statement...and politics is the art of making policy, so of fricking course it "pure" politics. Our early politics had founders and politicians engaging in duels for lord's sake.

As the nation grew, and expanded far, far, far beyond the small agrarian nation of the 1700's and became an industrial powerhouse, changes were required. We have a standing army, which the founders argued against, yet the complaints from the right worry about agencies the EPA, an agency trying to make our water safe to drink...which seems clear to me is an aspect of general welfare. Clean water is one of the most effective health elements, yet Trump just changed a law allowing coal sludge to be dumped into our waterways. That doesn't seem to be general welfare, bit corporate welfare...that isn't needed and doesn't benefit hardly anyone and harms many. You support that?

You want strangulation...and argue forcibly for that here, yet get incredibly flexible in regard to the the bs paperwork "moving" a person to a different state...To me, the idea that Congress can create an agency in order to deal with an issue like clean water is obvious...just as obvious that Cheney did not actually move to Wyoming.

Again, I live in the Chesapeake region...and the bay is the receptacle for the drainage from parts of 7 states. The Susquehanna begins in Cooperstown, NY..draining water from Lake Otsego. We are all connected in such fashion...so, yeah, the needs and demands grew as the understanding of our interconnectedness grew. We realized air and water weren't stationary.

That said, you argued Hamilton was not a man of insight...nor forward looking, then you pen this:

Hamilton himself was a man out of time, much more suited to the 20th century than the 18th...

Yes, he was visionary.
 
Craig

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
trapdoor said:
The Senate provided advice -- that advice was that it would not provide its consent. It has no further mandate to say yea, nay or any other three letter word..
Click to expand...
Disagree. The vote would have provided, or not provided, consent.

The edict was simply that, an edict.
 
T

trapdoor

Governor
Craig said:
Not willy nilly...within the parameters of general and/or common benefit.

The Preamble is the mission statement...and politics is the art of making policy, so of fricking course it "pure" politics. Our early politics had founders and politicians engaging in duels for lord's sake.
Click to expand...
No, the Preamble is a statement of reasons for what comes next. There is no "mission statement" -- there is merely an assignment of authorities to the various branches, judicial, executive and legislative.
As the nation grew, and expanded far, far, far beyond the small agrarian nation of the 1700's and became an industrial powerhouse, changes were required. We have a standing army, which the founders argued against, yet the complaints from the right worry about agencies the EPA, an agency trying to make our water safe to drink...which seems clear to me is an aspect of general welfare. Clean water is one of the most effective health elements, yet Trump just changed a law allowing coal sludge to be dumped into our waterways. That doesn't seem to be general welfare, bit corporate welfare...that isn't needed and doesn't benefit hardly anyone and harms many. You support that?
Click to expand...
As the nation grew and expanded, provision was made in the Constitution to make changes to the Constitution. The EPA is an excellent example of ignoring that provision, and simply deciding the government can do whatever it desires. Where is the amendment to the Constitution giving the EPA the authority exist and act? YOU may see it as "general welfare." The actual authority for the Clean Water Act was parked where other "plenary" authorities are often parked -- the regulation of interstate trade.
You want strangulation...and argue forcibly for that here, yet get incredibly flexible in regard to the the bs paperwork "moving" a person to a different state...To me, the idea that Congress can create an agency in order to deal with an issue like clean water is obvious...just as obvious that Cheney did not actually move to Wyoming.
Click to expand...
No, I don't want strangulation. I want the government to obey the rules set forth in the Constitution. For the 19th Century and early 20th when we wanted the government to have new authorities we did the legwork and amended the Constitution to provide them, as we should have. You want the government empowered to "do good." Well, it has certainly received more power -- but it doesn't always use that power for good. And if it can be expanded outside the bounds of the Constitution to do things you like, such as the EPA, it can also be expanded outside the bounds of the Constitution to do things you don't like, such as the USA Patriot Act. I'd rather it be put back on a constitutional footing for both.


That said, you argued Hamilton was not a man of insight...nor forward looking, then you pen this:

Hamilton himself was a man out of time, much more suited to the 20th century than the 18th...

Yes, he was visionary.
Click to expand...
I never disparaged him as a man who lacked vision -- but I disparaged him when I called him a man out of time. Like modern politicians, he had no sense of persona constency or need to have current statements agree with past statements (he was Trumpesque in this regard). So he could easily say that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because there was no need to prevent the government from inhibiting the press when it had been given no authority to do so; and then a year or two later say there was all sorts of extra authority that the government could exercise located in the general welfare clause. These are, of course mutually exclusive positions. He was Clintonesque in his personal life, maintaining a multiple-mistress lifestyle; and he was Limbaugh-esque in his partisanship and excoriation of his political opponents -- Limbaugh, however, does not live in a time of the code duello. The upshot of all this is that when I said Hamilton was a man out of time, it was indeed disparaging him compared to other men of his era.[/QUOTE]
 
E

EatTheRich

President
Craig said:
As I answered, there are very few limits on the powers of the government as long as their actions were dedicated to the mission statement. The word Hamilton used was plenary.

Many of the limits are spelled out directly. Things like...the VP and the President CANNOT live in the state.

The 9th Amendment makes it clear that the enumerated rights listed in Article One, Section 8, are not the only rights retained by the people. The language could not be clearer.
Click to expand...
Congress is not the people, though.
 
Craig

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
trapdoor said:
No, the Preamble is a statement of reasons for what comes next. There is no "mission statement" -- there is merely an assignment of authorities to the various branches, judicial, executive and legislative.


As the nation grew and expanded, provision was made in the Constitution to make changes to the Constitution. The EPA is an excellent example of ignoring that provision, and simply deciding the government can do whatever it desires. Where is the amendment to the Constitution giving the EPA the authority exist and act? YOU may see it as "general welfare." The actual authority for the Clean Water Act was parked where other "plenary" authorities are often parked -- the regulation of interstate trade.


No, I don't want strangulation. I want the government to obey the rules set forth in the Constitution. For the 19th Century and early 20th when we wanted the government to have new authorities we did the legwork and amended the Constitution to provide them, as we should have. You want the government empowered to "do good." Well, it has certainly received more power -- but it doesn't always use that power for good. And if it can be expanded outside the bounds of the Constitution to do things you like, such as the EPA, it can also be expanded outside the bounds of the Constitution to do things you don't like, such as the USA Patriot Act. I'd rather it be put back on a constitutional footing for both.




I never disparaged him as a man who lacked vision -- but I disparaged him when I called him a man out of time. Like modern politicians, he had no sense of persona constency or need to have current statements agree with past statements (he was Trumpesque in this regard). So he could easily say that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because there was no need to prevent the government from inhibiting the press when it had been given no authority to do so; and then a year or two later say there was all sorts of extra authority that the government could exercise located in the general welfare clause. These are, of course mutually exclusive positions. He was Clintonesque in his personal life, maintaining a multiple-mistress lifestyle; and he was Limbaugh-esque in his partisanship and excoriation of his political opponents -- Limbaugh, however, does not live in a time of the code duello. The upshot of all this is that when I said Hamilton was a man out of time, it was indeed disparaging him compared to other men of his era.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

A man out of his time may well a visionary if his vision comes to bear fruit. If a man whose outlook takes 100 years to bear fruit he can be considered forward looking.

The preamble is clearly a mission statement...

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.

Those are the stated goals of the United States. No assignment of authority whatsoever. None. That comes in the Articles. I believe this "empowers the government to do good". As an example, eminent domain is fully constitutional...and the reasons are..."to do good". It was typically used to build "needful buildings", the non specific phrase used, which ranged from post offices naval facilities to schools to roads; all to promote commerce, the common defense, and the general welfare.

That an agency, or even a SCOTUS ruling can be abusive, or incorrect (Wilburn, Kelo) doesn't mean the idea of interstate commerce regulations or eminent domain are wrong, just that, like many things, abuses occur. The goal is to provide...and this means set up a system for...the general welfare. Clean water is part of that. Transport of goods is part of that. Schools are part of that.

Strange...I simply don't see your complaints about our massive standing army...
 
E

EatTheRich

President
Bugsy McGurk said:
As you know, I didn't say that presidents can make such appointments without the Senate's consent. I did say that the Framers intended that the Senate either advise or consent - say yea or nay. The Framers did not envision that partisan wackjobs would seek to negate the presidential power to fill seats by refusing outright to even consider any nominees. Making it even worse, the Senate did not even make such a decision as to Obama's nominee - only Mitch McConnell did. A constitutional abomination.
Click to expand...
Refusal to consider the appointment is refusal to consent to the appointment. Refusal to consider any nominee by a particular president is a political decision on the merits of that president's nomination, and discharges the so-called constitutional duty of advice. McConnell got his way because there weren't sufficient votes in the Senate to countermand his position.

Whether the Republican Senators acted honorably or wisely ... and I don't think they did ... has nothing to do with whether their actions were constitutional.
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
EatTheRich said:
Refusal to consider the appointment is refusal to consent to the appointment. Refusal to consider any nominee by a particular president is a political decision on the merits of that president's nomination, and discharges the so-called constitutional duty of advice. McConnell got his way because there weren't sufficient votes in the Senate to countermand his position.

Whether the Republican Senators acted honorably or wisely ... and I don't think they did ... has nothing to do with whether their actions were constitutional.
Click to expand...
This is getting repetitive.

Again, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to either advise or consent - say yea or nay. It does not give the Senate the power to negate the presidential power to fill seats by decreeing that no nominees will even be considered. And it sure as hell doesn't give that power to one senator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top