OT I really wish Dems would get their act together.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

AFAIK we're just a couple of states away from Republicans doing this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution That is, while we were all concentrating on The Mighty O, Reps were gaining in the states. Well, like I said, AFAIK.

Now Dems are thinking about...


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/349808-michelle-obama-outshines-all-democratic-prospects

http://www.newsweek.com/former-bill-clinton-pollster-michelle-obama-best-candidate-beat-donald-trump-662574

I don't think it would be impossible, but is it likely? OTOH, I guess now, anything is possible.

[David Amicus]

I like the idea of Single Subject Amendment. And also line item veto. Term limits for Congress.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

So if there's an education bill it could be about reading and not writing or arithmetic because those would require separate bills?

> And also line item veto.

Why would you need this if you're a supporter of the SSA?


> Term limits for Congress.

When the voters get tired of 'em they can throw 'em out.

[David Amicus]

Education is the prerogative of the states therefore there would be no education bills in Congress.

Usually with a SSA the executive can reduce the amount of money the bill allocates.

Term limits would at least get "new blood". Without POTUS term limits we might have Obama third term or even a Bill Clinton 7th term.

[jeffg...@webtv.net]

When you say education is the prerogative of the states do you realize that the federal Department of Education was created by the first George Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act which mandates all the testing was put into law by the second George Bush?

[jack]

DoE was separated from HEW in 1979. The original HEW was founded in 1953, under another Republican president.

[David Amicus]

I think it was established by Carter. I think No Child Left Behind was wrong. As I have said education belongs to the states except for the several military academies like West Point, Annapolis etc..

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:41:58 AM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:05:54 AM UTC-7, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 10:15:01 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-7, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > > > AFAIK we're just a couple of states away from Republicans doing this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution That is, while we were all concentrating on The Mighty O, Reps were gaining in the states. Well, like I said, AFAIK.
> > > >
> > > > Now Dems are thinking about...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/349808-michelle-obama-outshines-all-democratic-prospects
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newsweek.com/former-bill-clinton-pollster-michelle-obama-best-candidate-beat-donald-trump-662574
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it would be impossible, but is it likely? OTOH, I guess now, anything is possible.
> > >
> > > I like the idea of Single Subject Amendment.
> >
> > So if there's an education bill it could be about reading and not writing or arithmetic because those would require separate bills?
> >
> >
> > > And also line item veto.
> >
> > Why would you need this if you're a supporter of the SSA?
> >
> >
> > > Term limits for Congress.
> >
> > When the voters get tired of 'em they can throw 'em out.
>
> Education is the prerogative of the states therefore there would be no education bills in Congress.

Should I have chosen a different example? Ok, when it comes to minting money, one bill for the cent, another for the disme and yet another for the dollar?

The disme: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disme

>
> Usually with a SSA the executive can reduce the amount of money the bill allocates.

Isn't the the purview of congress? Why do you hate the separation of powers?

>
> Term limits would at least get "new blood". Without POTUS term limits we might have Obama third term or even a Bill Clinton 7th term.

Or maybe Saint Reagan would still be in office. Why do you hate letting the voters decide these things?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

And where in the COTUS is the authorization for the Federal Gov't to do these sorts of things?

[jack]

In Article 2, section we have this: "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices..."
Which indicates it was obvious to the Founders the President would have a Cabinet.

And furthered in the next paragraph by giving the Senate control over the appointments:
"2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Establishing the Cabinet was one of the first things the new Senate did.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/First_cabinet_confirmation.htm

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

I don't think that was being debated.

>
> And furthered in the next paragraph by giving the Senate control over the appointments:

> "2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."\

Does it allow them to do anything they want? Do the appointments have to relate to one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Or can it be anything Congress wants it to be?

>
> Establishing the Cabinet was one of the first things the new Senate did.
> https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/First_cabinet_confirmation.htm

How about a Department of Zombies? Does the Federal Gov't have the legal power to create such a department or not?

[jack]

What are you talking about? COTUS gives the government power to create executive departments. I guess it is up to Congress and POTUS to decide which issues need executive departments.

> >
> > Establishing the Cabinet was one of the first things the new Senate did.
> > https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/First_cabinet_confirmation.htm
>
> How about a Department of Zombies? Does the Federal Gov't have the legal power to create such a department or not?

Sure, why not, if you want to get silly about this.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

So much for a government of limited powers.

>
> > >
> > > Establishing the Cabinet was one of the first things the new Senate did.
> > > https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/First_cabinet_confirmation.htm
> >
> > How about a Department of Zombies? Does the Federal Gov't have the legal power to create such a department or not?
>
> Sure, why not, if you want to get silly about this.

I'm just trying to understand this. Does the COTUS limit the powers of the government or not?

[jack]

I'm not sure that is a logically valid question. I'm not sure a piece of paper has any power in itself to do anything, and I'm not being facetious; COTUS is a human-created document. Why would anyone want a bunch of guys in 1789 telling the country in perpetuity how they can act? The FF surely did not.

COTUS tells us how the government is to be structured and gives us a bare-bones outline of what kinds of things the government should be legislating about. Plus, the COTUS is set within the context of English common law which allows issues to be determined on a case-by-case basis with those cases setting precedents for future cases. There is no supreme tribunal that rules on issues from a platonic 1790s POV. You better have your precedents set down pretty strongly at the Supreme Court or they'll toss you out.

And just as important, the Constitution has a procedure listed for amending it. So your answer is no, COTUS has no magical power to limit the actions of human beings. You either believe the COTUS is a valid way of structuring US politics or you don't. People regulate themselves.

[David Johnston]

It does when it specifically says "Government can't do that". Otherwise, not so much.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

It does? What about the point you made above where it doesn't?

> and gives us a bare-bones outline of what kinds of things the government should be legislating about.

So then not a government of limited powers? What is the point of having a COTUS at all?

> Plus, the COTUS is set within the context of English common law which allows issues to be determined on a case-by-case basis with those cases setting precedents for future cases. There is no supreme tribunal that rules on issues from a platonic 1790s POV. You better have your precedents set down pretty strongly at the Supreme Court or they'll toss you out.

Stare decisis? Do you support that for the recent gun rights decisions?

>
> And just as important, the Constitution has a procedure listed for amending it. So your answer is no, COTUS has no magical power to limit the actions of human beings. You either believe the COTUS is a valid way of structuring US politics or you don't. People regulate themselves.

A real politic answer. Yes, you're right. It's just a piece of paper and it has no validity if we don't believe in it. The question is, should we?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

Then what was the point of enumerating the powers of Congress?

[jack]

> > I'm not sure that is a logically valid question. I'm not sure a piece of paper has any power in itself to do anything, and I'm not being facetious; COTUS is a human-created document. Why would anyone want a bunch of guys in 1789 telling the country in perpetuity how they can act? The FF surely did not.
> >
> > COTUS tells us how the government is to be structured
>
> It does? What about the point you made above where it doesn't?

Did not say that.

>
> > and gives us a bare-bones outline of what kinds of things the government should be legislating about.
>
> So then not a government of limited powers? What is the point of having a COTUS at all?

Are you saying that the COTUS is only valid if it limits government powers? that doesn't make sense. Even a dictator would want to put his powers in writing.

>
> > Plus, the COTUS is set within the context of English common law which allows issues to be determined on a case-by-case basis with those cases setting precedents for future cases. There is no supreme tribunal that rules on issues from a platonic 1790s POV. You better have your precedents set down pretty strongly at the Supreme Court or they'll toss you out.
>
> Stare decisis? Do you support that for the recent gun rights decisions?

that's the law presently, which many don't agree with.

>
> >
> > And just as important, the Constitution has a procedure listed for amending it. So your answer is no, COTUS has no magical power to limit the actions of human beings. You either believe the COTUS is a valid way of structuring US politics or you don't. People regulate themselves.
>
> A real politic answer. Yes, you're right. It's just a piece of paper and it has no validity if we don't believe in it. The question is, should we?

that's for you to decide for yourself. Forcing someone to believe in it is not a very limited use of government powers, is it?

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 5:05:11 PM UTC-4, jack wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that is a logically valid question. I'm not sure a piece of paper has any power in itself to do anything, and I'm not being facetious; COTUS is a human-created document. Why would anyone want a bunch of guys in 1789 telling the country in perpetuity how they can act? The FF surely did not.
> > >
> > > COTUS tells us how the government is to be structured
> >
> > It does? What about the point you made above where it doesn't?
>
> Did not say that.
> >
> > > and gives us a bare-bones outline of what kinds of things the government should be legislating about.
> >
> > So then not a government of limited powers? What is the point of having a COTUS at all?
>
> Are you saying that the COTUS is only valid if it limits government powers?

Actually yes. But in our case the COTUS makes a government of limited powers.

> that doesn't make sense. Even a dictator would want to put his powers in writing.

Is that why King John was so eager to sign Magna Carta?

>
> >
> > > Plus, the COTUS is set within the context of English common law which allows issues to be determined on a case-by-case basis with those cases setting precedents for future cases. There is no supreme tribunal that rules on issues from a platonic 1790s POV. You better have your precedents set down pretty strongly at the Supreme Court or they'll toss you out.
> >
> > Stare decisis? Do you support that for the recent gun rights decisions?
>
> that's the law presently, which many don't agree with.

Presently? You mean you think people want to overturn an issue that has been decided? I wonder if that's the same group that's been arguing in favor of stare decisis ever since Roe was decided?

> > > And just as important, the Constitution has a procedure listed for amending it. So your answer is no, COTUS has no magical power to limit the actions of human beings. You either believe the COTUS is a valid way of structuring US politics or you don't. People regulate themselves.
> >
> > A real politic answer. Yes, you're right. It's just a piece of paper and it has no validity if we don't believe in it. The question is, should we?
>
> that's for you to decide for yourself. Forcing someone to believe in it is not a very limited use of government powers, is it?

IMHO no, but it seems that my views are outdated citizen. I'll report myself for a thought-crime. Double plus good.

[David Johnston]

It establishes what aren't the powers of...say...the president. But vague expresses like "provide for the general welfare" are not limitations...except once again to establish who has the power to allocate money and who doesn't.

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

That phrase in the preamble doesn't describe a power of government, it is explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#United_States

"The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""

> ...except once again to establish who has the power to allocate money and who doesn't.

And then:
"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government."

[the...@bigmailbox.net]

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-4, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> AFAIK we're just a couple of states away from Republicans doing this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Maybe the pendulum is swinging back a little bit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/13/democrats-are-getting-some-very-good-news-in-special-elections/?utm_term=.33d50dd7ee03