Making up Stuff About the Constitution

My take on it is that a political situation arises, a solution is determined, and the constitution is "bent" to favor implementation using the commerce clause and, if the beltway is not swamped, we make it home by dinner.

For example, Health Care - this has been a perpetual problem for politicians ever since the health monopoly matured. See it for what it is and fix it is what I believe most Americans want but we have a few not so small potentially embarrassing political situations that have hitched a ride on the health legislation bandwagon in order to be "solved" and save face for a certain few. They are:

1. Massachusetts Public Plan - Not sustainable, costs in the billions.

2. California - Unsustainable health costs in part due to the influx of non tax paying illegals and associated health costs.

3. TennCare - Recently "adjusted" by the Governor and holding on but still potentially problematic for state revenues.

Look at the people pushing the hardest for a single payer health care system and then look at the states they represent. Progressives seem to be hitting hardballs by even refusing to play unless they get their way. Check the CPC list and remember that Nancy Pelosi (California) was also on the list before she became speaker.

The bottom line is that it would appear that a few politicians are willing to strong arm the entire nation into a similar predicament in order to save their rears in their home states.

Where's the Constitution in all this, I ask you? It seems to be more of a game than anything else.

If they understood AND accepted the Constitutional law, there would be absolutely no ground for their "progressive"/socialist ambition with government. Therefore they choose not to, and when possible get corrupt courts to "reinterpret" (AKA: rewrite) it for them.

I probably shouldn't say this is socialist, as it is a rather common drive among all politicians to seek greater and greater power for themselves, that inevitably means ruling beyond the means of their office's constitutional limitations.

A policy that overtime inevitably leads to socialism government(them) controlling everything, and thus the people controlling little to nothing.

Thomas Jefferson was correct on May 27, 1788 when he said: " The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

This simple truth can be attributed to one simple fact whether the people (uses-full idiots as marx called em) have been fooled into following them or not all politicians seek power as a matter of course. That general direction when left unchecked leads invariably to that which Thomas Jefferson predicted. That is until the civilization declines under the government's corrupt weight. At which point the laws of economics not nature of political leaders dictates the extent and growth rate of their power.

In his book (1868), "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results," Alexander Stephens wrote the following concerning the change of language in the preamble during the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787:

"The most striking difference in phraseology between the two, is that which sets forth the object in forming ‘a more perfect Union,’ etc., to be, to ‘ordain and establish this Constitution,’ not for the people in any sense, but for States as political societies.

As it stands, the instrument ‘is ordained and established’ as a Constitution for States—for the United States. The same as if it had read ‘for the States of the Union.’

The change, in this particular, is very important, and the very preamble, which is so often alluded to, for a directly opposite purpose, conclusively shows that the government was intended to be, and is a Government of States, for States… In the change of phraseology the introduction of the word Union has a wonderful significance of itself. The new Constitution was proposed ‘in order to form a more perfect Union,’ that is, it was to make more perfect ‘the Union’ then existing. That, as we have seen, was a Union of States under the Articles of Confederation. It was to revise these Articles, to enlarge the powers under them, or, in other words, to perfect that Union, that the Convention was called; and that was the object aimed at in all their labors to the conclusion of their work as set forth in this Preamble."

In his book (1868), "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results," Alexander Stephens wrote the following concerning the change of language in the preamble during the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787:

"The most striking difference in phraseology between the two, is that which sets forth the object in forming ‘a more perfect Union,’ etc., to be, to ‘ordain and establish this Constitution,’ not for the people in any sense, but for States as political societies.

As it stands, the instrument ‘is ordained and established’ as a Constitution for States—for the United States. The same as if it had read ‘for the States of the Union.’

The change, in this particular, is very important, and the very preamble, which is so often alluded to, for a directly opposite purpose, conclusively shows that the government was intended to be, and is a Government of States, for States… In the change of phraseology the introduction of the word Union has a wonderful significance of itself. The new Constitution was proposed ‘in order to form a more perfect Union,’ that is, it was to make more perfect ‘the Union’ then existing. That, as we have seen, was a Union of States under the Articles of Confederation. It was to revise these Articles, to enlarge the powers under them, or, in other words, to perfect that Union, that the Convention was called; and that was the object aimed at in all their labors to the conclusion of their work as set forth in this Preamble."

David Kennedy says…
“I suppose we would have had to look at two different timelines to see my point”

To properly answer these excellent questions,
We might start by asking ourselves what this centralized government has actually brought upon our people, and what is to be our future under it.
Social security - Insolvent
Medicare - Insolvent
Medicaid - Insolvent
Post office - Insolvent
Immigration control, - Insolvent
Internal affairs - Insolvent
National debt - Insolvent
Control of government - Insolvent
Exacta anyone?

David Kennedy says…
“I suppose we would have had to look at two different timelines to see my point”

To properly answer these excellent questions,
We might start by asking ourselves what this centralized government has actually brought upon our people, and what is to be our future under it.
Social security - Insolvent
Medicare - Insolvent
Medicaid - Insolvent
Post office - Insolvent
Immigration control, - Insolvent
Internal affairs - Insolvent
National debt - Insolvent
Control of government - Insolvent
Exacta anyone?

Begala is a far left nut job!!! They think the constitution is a living, breathing document that can be changed and reinterpreted at any time.

Basically, the constituion should be used as a guideline and be secondary for how one feels.

Very scary precedent when you think about it.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land...

It's not constitutionally supported for the congress to do much of anything.

Their powers are to govern the army and navy, borrow money, make uniform rules for bankruptcy, make copyright law, and establish post offices - as well as other odds and ends.

Everything else was given to the states..

Luckily, we never followed that. The vast majority of laws on the government books wouldn't be constitutional.. and should have been decided on a state by state basis... but my point is - would that, in our fore-fathers ultimate wisdom, have been a better outcome? We would most definitely have ended up with 50 different countries.. attached together loosely by a group of some 500 legislators who have nothing much to do but 'govern' the troops.

I suppose we would have had to look at two different timelines to see my point.. if we had kept the literal view of the constitution that all these laws were kept as the duty of the states.. would that truly have formed a more perfect union? Divided we fall.

I like Larry's comment there, good one. One of the best examples is Amtrak. It was supposed to be self-sufficient by 1975 and we're still subsidizing it today.

Be better to give the major railroads a tax break or incentive to run the passenger trains rather than the mess we have right now.

And I'm someone who actually enjoys traveling on Amtrak every so often!

"more perfect"....Kind of like Clark Griswold?.. you mean more perfect that way??

Show me one single federal program that works the way it was originally intended.. heck, find me one that works within budget!

Any person who has studied the Constitution for the United States of America and other founding documents knows that the Founders struggled over every word and punctuation mark. As Professor Natelson makes clear, it's equally important for us to understand their words precisely with the help of their contemporary writings and common definitions. Not to do so, as part-time Professor Begala is wont to do, reduces us to speculative simpletons taking stabs in the dark about the Founders' intent.

I saw this posted as feedback on reddit.com:

"Oh my god, this is like hearing people bicker over what a particular phrase in the bible really means. It's not holy guys, God's not going to come down and smite people because they read it differently."

Hard to imagine all the possible implications of that point of view. Wow, is all I can say.

Sounds like 90% of my teachers as I was growing up. Nah, make it 100%.