« NATO Ministers Support McChrystal — Easy For Them To Say
A Refreshing Speech from the Floor of the Ohio House of Representatives »
Nancy Pelosi’s Perfect Answer to a Perfectly Ridiculous Question
The question, which came from a reporter for the right-wing Internet publication CNS.com:
“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
And Speaker Pelosi’s answer:
“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi moved on to the next question; later, Pelosi’s press person, Nadeam Elshami, told CNS, “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question.”
Ed Morrissey, of course, concludes that Pelosi did not answer the question because she lacked an answer and did not know what else to say:
Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer. Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer. After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority. It’s not exactly a lengthy document. How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?
Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult. The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance. The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly. If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.
It’s more likely that Pelosi was at a loss for words because she could not decide which of the thousands of laws Congress has passed in the past 220 years could stand if each one had to be explicitly authorized by the Constitution:
I am particularly perplexed/annoyed by the conservative assumption that unless explicit text directly authorizes a legislative enactment, then Congress necessarily lacks the power to pass the law. This is a extraordinarily foolish and unsupportable view of the Constitution. The Constitution is written in general terms; only a few provisions define individual rights and governmental powers with precision. To make this point more concrete, I quote from a previous essay on the subject:
It is absolutely absurd to ask whether the constitution specifically or explicitly allows Congress to regulate or reform healthcare. The Constitution speaks broadly and ambiguously. Only a few provisions are specific and beyond dispute (like the age requirement for presidents and members of Congress).
The Constitution does not specifically or explicitly authorize the creation of the Air Force or Medicare, nor does it discuss the federal prosecution of crack cocaine possession. And the “Framers” certainly did not specifically contemplate airplanes, prescription drug and hospital plans for seniors, or crack cocaine because these things were not realities when they wrote the Constitution.
If conservatives only believe Congress can regulate things that are explicitly mentioned in the actual text of the Constitution, then they should essentially advocate the abolition of the federal government. At a minimum, they should seek the immediate repeal of laws banning partial-birth abortion and kidnapping; the Constitution does not mention children or abortion.
Also, as many students of high school and college civics classes know, Article I of the Constitution contains the “necessary and proper” clause, which endows Congress with unenumerated powers that are needed to carry out its expressly delegated powers. In the very first case interpreting this provision (McCulloch v. Maryland), the Supreme Court rejected the narrow interpretation offered by anti-federalists.
Many of today’s conservatives pretend that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not exist or that courts can only interpret it conservatively. Nothing in the history of the clause or the Court’s interpretation of it compels an exclusively narrow interpretation.
As Ed himself says, “It’s not exactly a lengthy document.”
131 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi’s Perfect Answer to a Perfectly Ridiculous Question”
I tend to agree with you on your take of the Reps and Dems – with one exception.
Yes, it was the Republicans that were the Madisonians (federalists). But in today's political realm, the republicans have switched to the Jeffersonian-like approach. In short, today's Republicans are yesterday's democrats, and today's democrats are yesterday's republicans. Other than that, you hit the nail on the head with your view.
I'd love to see a true Jeffersonian win the Presidency. Ain't gonna happen, unless Ron Paul (or someone like him) wins someday. As you pointed out, however, the system we have will keep that from happening.
“Then there's the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is the best argument in existence. The argument I would make in court is that because the Congress can keep people from buying insurance interstate, the Government can regulate the industry. So it would allow only regulation of the insurance industry, not a public option.”
Bingo. Give that man a cupie-doll.
Well stated.
“Why do you biblical literalists “take a leak” to use your memorable words, on 95% of the Bible, and only take the remaining 5% literally? “
As I exhaustively told you on another thread, Kathy….. I take the entire Bible as instruction, not 5%. It is you that murder and justify homosexuality through God's Word, not me.
As for your poor attempt at questioning my approach to poverty and sickness, I guarantee that I have more of my time, money, and resources dedicated to helping those less fortunate than myself than you will ever dream about. I put my “Christianity” into action in that respect. I will always help those who cannot HELP THEMSELVES. For those too lazy to attempt to provide for themselves, I have very little pity. As I stated, it is not my duty as an American to provide anything. It is, however, my duty as a Christian to do so.
And you can write a 1,000,000,000 word essay based upon your faulty definition of “general welfare”. It won't change the fact that “general welfare” does not mean “individual welfare”. You want each individual to be provided for. That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work, Kathy. That's how socialism and communism works.
I agree, from my point of view the Jefferson-like approach has just become dangerous since it has been so de-coupled from the original intent much like communism in theory being benign but Stalins version was far from it though in this case the danger does not come from the state but from the state opening the floodgates for corporations to do as they please which surprise surprise involves them being allowed to loot the middle and lower classes along with our remaining small businesses.
The greatest crime of the 2008 election in my opinion was the marginalization of Ron Paul that was performed by the media at the request of the major parties and their backers. My fear is that another Reagan is waiting in the wings and for those that do not remember history not only was Reagan a federalist(he was a new deal dem that flipped to Rep) he also is what largely brought the country to this point of economic melt down. He ran promising to end the federal reserve and then backed away while in office and then in some moment of monumental hypocrisy he ballooned our national debt which did create momentary great prosperity that has still yet to be paid for while destroying unions. In short I like my federalists to be incrementalists like Obama is currently being but for a Jeffersonian if they are not extremist like Ron Paul I do not trust them to do anything but make this even worse. I have a hope that the Ron Paul types will pull back in 2012 and allow a mainstream candidate to lose opening the path to a true Ron Paul type in 2016 as the Republican party tries to re-image but by the way the lay of the land currently looks my guess is that the tea parties will get a candidate in 2012 that will be Barry Goldwater II and lose just as handily so that the Republican party can again blame its loss on the libertarians and ignore them for another 50 years or so. If the tea partiers “win” and also win in 2012 by some miracle mark my words he will be much more like Reagan than Ron Paul and our nation will be in a world of shit. Then again I also think the same thing about the Dems winning in 2016 though since I fear they will not be incrementalists.
“I continue to have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the James Madison quote”.
Try the Library of Congress. You DO trust that reference I presume.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
And when you're done there…. Here's an even better one from Madison that is more in keeping with the subject of this thread:
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT.”
- James Madison Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees”
I was thinking about your assertion about the Air Force and it's Constitutionality. I agree with both sides on this one. The Navy and Army have “departments”, and both are authorized explicitly in the Constitution. The Air Force was perfectly Constitutional when it was merely the Army Air Corps. Once they gave it “Department” status, they probably should have amended the Constitution to provide it. The same could be said for the Department of Homeland Security.
General welfare or defense should never be guess upon. If it is not in there explicitly, add it through amendment. The Federal Government is supposed to be extremely limited as James Madison stated:
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees.
I referenced that before, but it applied here as well.
I looked over the Library of Congress page that you linked to. It shows that a number of the Founding Fathers were supportive of religion. Some, such as Patrick Henry, even supported a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that would have levied a tax for the support of religion. However, it also shows that it was none other than James Madison who led the effort to defeat the bill, which is in accordance with the point that I have been making–that James Madison was critical of mixing religion with politics.
And again, the ten commandments quote attributed to Madison cannot be found anywhere on that page. My best guess is that the quotation was misattributed to him. Perhaps it was said by another Founding Father. But given Madison's strong criticism of mixing religion with politics, I don't think it was very likely that he would have said such a thing. I can't know for certain.
I'm not really sure what being religious or having religious sympathies has to do with understanding the Constitution. I have came across Libertarians who are agnostic or atheist and I have come across Libertarians who are religious, and all of them, regardless of their religious views, seemed to understand and respect the Constitution and the idea of limited government.
On the other hand, I have come across religious people and non-religious people alike who seemed not to understand or respect the Constitution.
In other words, it has been my experience that being religious or being sympathetic to religion is not a good marker as to whether someone understands and respects the Constitution and limited government.
No, I do not support a complete disbanding of the professional standing army. However, I do support bringing most of our soldiers home–not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but from the military bases in more than a hundred countries around the world. I don't believe that nation-building or policing the world are endeavors that are consistent with the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Hey Nic.
I agree wholeheartedly with you about the bringing our troops home. Although I support the war on terrorism in theory, we cannot defeat an ideology no matter how long we stay. You are correct that the Founding Fathers did not intend that sort of empire building foreign policy.
And I thought the LOC link I gave you had the statement. I'll look again. It may have been misattributed, but many of Madisons other comments are readily available as noted in my original post with the quotes.
The main purpose for those quotes, was not to inject religion. I, too, do not support government funded or government mandated religion. The Deiest philosophy was that the Constitution had “God” at it's very core, and would not reign correctly, nor could not last without it. The revisionist approach has been to remove God entirely from all facets of government existence – goiing against the Founding Fathers' intent.
This is exactly the same as what is being done in terms of Constitutionality of healthcare and every other federal program that benefits individuals and special interest groups. Both GOP and DNC are guilty of this practice. Both are crapping on the intent of the Constitution. And as within most law, intent is read into much of it. It is just is ignored today by Congress.
This has been a fascinating debate, and I appreciate the tenor and respect most participants show toward one another. It’s why I enjoy reading the comments here as opposed to other sites whose members hurl insults and such.
I have but one comment. I fundamentally have issues with the expansive view of originalism some people use. The only form of originalism I find truly credible is textualism, while the use of auxiliary sources like the Federalist Papers, letter, and such have long troubled me. Granted, the Federalist Papers were drafted by three brilliant men who had great insight into why and how Constitution was drafted. But alas, it is only three interpretations amongst many. As you all know, the ratification process involved the decisions of about 1700 men, 1650 state legislators and the 55 members of the Constitutional delegation. So the question: is whose opinion or set of opinions constitute the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? I don’t think that question is answerable which in effect makes the question of original intent unanswerable. The opinions of state legislators were just as important as the delegates (that's essentially why we ended up with the Bill of Rights, to pacify anti-Federalists in the Mid-Atlantic states). But the fact that the state legislatures ratified the Constitution does not mean that they held the same interpretation of the text as Madison, et al. In fact, they held a wide variety of views which caused the Framers to draft several elements of the Constitution vaguely to allow for interpretive flexibility in the text and thus attract more votes—the Constitution was an exercise in compromise. The same logic applies to most legislation today.
Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. I’ve read their works many times over. And I believe the endeavor to interpret the Constitution as it was intended a noble cause. But while there are surely textual specifics that are explicit and must be adhered to, once it starts to get blurry, finding original intent is, in my humble opinion, a fool’s errand.
K — patently absurd description of the general welfare clause. As James Madison wrote, “With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Got it?
That's Madison, mind you, not the egregious Statists who have already bankrupted the country by destroying the firewalls of the Constitution.
I asked you twice to name something the government may not do, and you couldn't.
And I named several things the government may not do, probably half a dozen times, but heck, who's counting? I'll name them again.
1. The government may not arrest persons at will and detain them without informing them of the charges against them, without access to an attorney, without legal due process, indefinitely.
2. The government may not establish secret prison sites, inside or outside of the United States' borders, and disappear persons into those sites, with no accountability.
3. The government may not employ torture against any person under any circumstances whatsoever.
4. The government may not intercept and/or read the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens without a search warrant obtained upon the presenting of probable cause.
5. The government may not monitor the activities of peacefully dissenting political groups and organizations, such as anti-war organizations, without a search warrant that would not be given unless there was probable cause of violent, illegal, or otherwise dangerous activity.
6. The government may not create small, enclosed spaces within which political dissent can be expressed, and outside of which political dissent is subject to arrest and detention.
I can give you some more examples. Would you like me to?
“With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Doug,
Cite? I think you've put quote marks around someone else's, at best, paraphrase. That does not sound like 18th century writing style to me.
As I stated, it is not my duty as an American to provide anything. It is, however, my duty as a Christian to do so.
Jesus would not have understood that distinction, but he lived in very different times. You are entitled to your absolute unquestioned certainties as I am entitled to my examined understandings, beliefs, and values. I am never going to convince you that there is no black or white in human existence, only shades of gray; and you are never going to convince me that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from the man in the clouds rather than as inspired wisdom expressed in the language of metaphor, allusion, and paradox.
That's okay. (It has to be okay, since it's the way it is.) But having said that, I worry about the uneasy relationship between pluralistic, liberal democracy and absolute religious and political certainty. I cannot eliminate the dangers, but I will continue to pay close attention to them.
______________
“Spare Me the sound of your hymns,
and let Me not hear the music of your lutes,
But let justice well up like water,
Righteousness like an unfailing stream.” — Amos 5:23-24
Kathy an FYI:
Ed Morrissey has resonded to you.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/24/not-quite…
Doesn't seen impressed by your position.
1. wrong, as long as you are talking about non-US citizens outside the US who are declared spies (or all they have to do is suspend habeas corpus. Ask Lincoln)
2. wrong. Actually legal if outside the US borders
3. correct. of course, the Devil is in the details of what constitutes torture
4. wrong. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have weighed in on that one
5. wrong. The government can indeed monitor ANYONE if they so desire. What they cannot do is search and seizure, etc.
6. I, too, think it should be wrong, but again the courts and SCOTUS have said otherwise.
You seem to confuse your desires with the reality of the law. A common trait of Liberals in general, I might add.
Leonidas,
You are *extremely* late with this news. Jazz wrote a post about it yesterday.
AR,
1. First of all, it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to deny ANY person of due process. Read the Fifth Amendment. It says “persons” NOT citizens. Second, you are wrong even under your own definition. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and there have been other U.S. citizens detained without due process as well.
2. Really. Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it says that it's okay for the government to set up secret prisons and disappear people into them indefinitely with no due process. Show me where it says that, AR.
3. I think we all know by now that what was done to prisoners under the CIA interrogation program was torture. We've all seen the graphic descriptions. As you have said to me on several occasions, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.
4. Technically correct, since Congress passed legislation making Pres. Bush's illegal warrantless surveillance program legal, after the program had been operational, in violation of FISA, for years. If that's what constitutional means to you, there should be no issue of constitutionality at all with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, etc.
5. You are wrong, AR. The government does not have the legal right to spy on peacefully dissenting groups unless it has reason to believe there is specific illegal activity going on — and no, just opposing government policies does not constitute reason to believe there might be illegal activity. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Maryland about a year and a half ago to compel the state police to release records of surveillance activities on such groups, and is engaged in several other ongoing legal battles with the government concerning government surveillance of mosques, antiwar groups, etc.
6. It is wrong. There is no such thing as specified “zones” in this country where free speech can take place. The entire country is a free speech zone.
My “desires” have nothing to do with this subject. My strong interest in and support for the rule of law in general and the U.S. Constitution in particular is what's relevant here. As frustrating and ultimately pointless as it is to get into an “It's you, no it's you, no it's YOU” thing, I feel compelled to point out that it's the right that seems to have problems distinguishing between what they believe should be unconstitutional and what actually is. To argue on the one hand that health care reform, or specifically a mandate to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional; and on the other to insist that it's perfectly legal for the government to kidnap people off the streets or passing through an airport on their way home with absolutely no need to show cause or suspicion of anything, and hold and interrogate them, using torture, basically forever if desired; does not conform to any understanding I have ever had of respect for the reality of the law. And that really IS the right's operating method these days. Interpret the Constitution narrowly on so-called “liberal” issues; interpret the Constitution expansively on issues dear to conservatives. The cynical opportunism of conservative/Republican judicial and legal philosophy is really quite astounding.
“The cynical opportunism of conservative/Republican judicial and legal philosophy is really quite astounding.”
Not to mention fiscal philosophy.
1. Not according the rulings so far.
2. Show me where it says they cannot
3. you agreed with me
4. you agreed with me
5. you didn't say spy – you said monitor. very different words. say what you mean. if what you said was true, then traffic cameras would be unconstitutional
6. you agree with me
So, you agree with me on 50%, and are wrong on the other 50%.
Show me where it says they cannot.
Oh my god, that's perfect. You just totally confirmed what I said about conservatives' cynical opportunism about interpreting the Constitution.
Show me where it says they cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance, AD.
This really is funny. I used the same standard for health insurance mandates and disappearing people into secret prisons — namely, where in the Constitution is that authorized? — and you used exactly the opposite standard for each one: Where in the Constitution is that authorized? for a health insurance mandate, and Show me where the Constitution says you can't? for the secret prisons.
It's just perfect.
you agreed with me.
No, I did not.
you agreed with me.
No, I did not.
You didn't say spy – you said monitor
You are not serious. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Spy: 1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
4. To investigate intensively.
v.intr.
1. To engage in espionage.
2. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
3. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.
monitor:
1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver.
2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations.
3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people.
4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities.
5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination.
6. To direct.
I'm done with you in this discussion. I didn't realize I was arguing with a six-year-old.
You said “Jesus would not have understood that distinction”.
Since you don't take anything Christ said in the Bible as fact, can you support that statement? Were you privy to His therapy sessions? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you pull that out of your hat?
Secondly, James Madison stated “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” I guess he, too, was a nutcase. Or did you sit in on his therapy session as well?
Do you not see my point in that? Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON – nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.
And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
“But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. ” After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.
Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.
When Kathy's arguments dry up or don't hold water, she gets “done with you on this subject”.
JD – I know. I really shouldn't be so hard on her; she is just such an annoying shrill. Her personal life is obviously a shambles from comments she has made (and I really do feel for the struggles she has and is going through), and all she seems to have is pretending she is a famous commentator making a difference, speaking 'truth to power' in that hyper-liberal self-righteous manner.
I know I go overboard on her at times, and when I do I try to dial it back for a bit and be nice. But then she goes off and makes some other completely asinine post (usually anti-American), and I cannot help myself.
You said “Jesus would not have understood that distinction”. Since you don't take anything Christ said in the Bible as fact, can you support that statement?
It has nothing to do with what Jesus said in the Bible. It has to do with the period of time he lived in.
Secondly, James Madison stated “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
That's nice, but we haven't been discussing charity. We've been discussing public policy.
Our government, which serves the people, is not supposed to serve the PERSON – nor the corporation, party, PAC, or special interest group for that matter.
One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person.
Two, government in this country has served business interests for most of its existence. Over the past 30 years or so, the relationship between private corporate interests and what we still refer to as the public sector (government, i.e.) has become so close as to be all but indistinguishable. The nexus between government — our elected officials — and the military-industrial complex (a term Eisenhower first used, in his presidential farewell address) is a huge threat to democracy. So if that's what worries you, you should be looking at things like Dick Cheney setting energy policy behind closed doors with companies like Enron, or at the influence that defense contractors have on decisions of war, the military, weapons procurement, budget issues, etc., or the hold that the private insurance industry has on the setting of health care policy. Telling me you're concerned about the influence of private corporate and special interests on government and obsessing about social welfare programs is crazy, in my view.
And as far as your quote, did you not read two verses beyond that?
“But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. ” After which, God would not hear your hymns, receive your worship, or validate your sacrifices.
My JPS translation reads:
“Did you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me,
those forty years in the wilderness,
O Israel!
And you shall carry off your “king”–
Sikkuth and Kiyyun,
The images you have made for yourselves,
of your astral deity–
as I drive you into exile beyond Damascus–
said the Lord, whose name is God of Hosts.
The space between the two sets of verses is in my edition, as are the quotes around king. And I don't follow your logic: How do these lines negate or contradict what went before?
Sounds like the liberal movement, only the Moloch is science, and Chiun is humanism.
And that sounds like fanatical religious extremism to me.
When Kathy's arguments dry up or don't hold water, she gets “done with you on this subject”.
In your case, after 1,146 comments. That should be done enough for anyone.
Whenever I have shared something personal about my life, I have done it in a context that leads me to believe my experiences might be helpful to others — if only to let them know they're not alone. Obviously, there is always the possibility when one does reveal such personal experiences that some person or persons (usually a small number) will use them in unkind and distorting ways in moments of anger. Most people, as I said, will not do this, even in anger. It's a line, you know, that most people, in my experience, won't cross. That you have crossed that line says so much more about you than it does about me.
You, too, have shared some personal information about yourself that I could now use to discredit your arguments and put you down as an individual. But I won't. Ever.
Wow, well into triple digits as of today.
And so far, the routine list of bad arguments dredged to support all kinds of federal encroachment into state and local affairs remails demolished, as we left them days earlier.
We're still waiting for Pelosi or anyone on here to answer the question she was asked, that she failed to answer.
Kathy, YOU are the one that questioned my lack of charity and Christianity when it comes to helping others (aka, CHARITY).
“One, social welfare programs serve the entire society, not just the individual person.”
Ok. Then how do I get to PERSONALLY and equally benefit from that same welfare program? Where's MY check? Where are MY free medicine and drugs? Where are they, Kathy? A welfare program that targets only certain groups in America is unconstitutional! You must serve all equally – no matter how squishy and compassionate the purpose is. It's the same as with the justice system in America. People with fame get off, people that aren't go to jail. Is that fair? No. Equal justice, equal welfare, equal everything.
And I agree that business interests have been served for so long in this country. That is why I, like you, am against government serving those interests as well. It's just as wrong as serving only the poor, or only the Christians, or only the whites, or only the men. True equality demands that we kick em all to the curb and serve the collective people, not individuals or commercial interests.
(About the Bible verse….. I did not say that my quote negated yours. It appeared that you were telling me that you didn't want to hear MY hymns (e.g.)… I merely used the passage after it to get a zinger in on liberalism.
And as I've always said. I love ya, Kathy. You're mostly wrong, but I still love ya.
I was not trying to be unkind – really I was not. I do indeed feel for you.
Perhaps I should have used different phrasing for the comment about pretending she is a famous commentator. That indeed comes off much worse than I intended. Or perhaps not, and I am too mean-spirited at times.
While I do not care for your politics (duh), I do actually like you as a person. You stand up for what you believe in (however wrong!
), stick to your guns, etc. You have been through a lot in your personal life from what you shared, and seem to be still going through some rough times. Yet you carry on. That shows a depth of character.
Anyway, I do feel bad when I get too personal towards you, and will try to keep it to comments (even if strong) about your politics, not your person.
Sorry to be so late in replaying. The Federalist numbers 25-29 deal with the problem of the standing army. It is not the existence of our current army that is the problem, but the scope of it. The standing army foreseen by Hamilton would be only large enough to deal with insurrection or invasion until the militia could be called up and nationalized.
So I'll admit that I overstated the case. However, the army, as it now exists, was never envisioned. Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war.
“The standing army foreseen by Hamilton would be only large enough to deal with insurrection or invasion until the militia could be called up and nationalized. “
I don't see anything in the papers that supports that (in fact it seems to oppose that point of view by saying that a professional army is necessary to fight wars), but maybe Hamilton said that in some other place. But like I said before, the only thing that matters is what the founders said directly explaining what was intended by the constitution. If Hamilton had those views about the military then those are his views, but I don't see them shedding any light on the intention of the constitution which is pretty clear as far as authorizing a standing, peace-time military.
“Nor was the President's use of the military in absence of a declared war.”
I agree. It seems clear to me that when the founders gave congress the power to declare war, the intention was that war should not be engaged in, at least at any large scale, until after war is declared. It's not stated that specifically in the constitution, but if that was not the intent that that makes the power to declare war meaningless, just as the broad interpretation of the “general welfare” clause makes the enumerated powers meaningless. So, I agree with you there. But that seems to me to more of an issue of how the branches of government use/abuse their power, rather than a question of the constitutionality of the military itself.