Merlyn_LeRoy

This shows how you have no conception of tyranny other than your silly anti-religion crusade. No, this shows my opinion differs from yours. The navy never had such a limit, only the army. Nobody would have thought it would expand so to merit its own branch. False, but irrelevant. We're only discussing what's constitutional, not what people did or didn't think of. Maintaining foreign bases and paying rent for them is different than foreign aid. Not always; suppose congress thinks that foreign aid to a country *might* pay off with permission to build a military base 10 years down the road? What about all the countries we aid with no bases? Aiding them may increase America's security in other ways. You seem to warp the meaning of the word necesary. I'm only using your warped version. You say congress can only do what the constitution says, but then you say they can regulate air forces when that isn't listed (and even though it was certainly conceivable at the time). If regulating an entire branch of the US military can be read in, so can giving aid to other countries.

Well war in the air did not occur when the the Constitution was written. True, but irrelevant. If congress only has the power to do what's explicitly written in the constitution, simply amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate air forces the same way as land and sea. Congress still sticks to the now-obsolete 2-year funding limit for the army, because that's what the constitution says and it isn't important enough to change. Congress was clearly given the authority to make war. True, but also irrelevant. Congress is clearly limited to regulating land and sea forces. The constitution was written AFTER the first successful manned hot-air balloon flight in 1783, so it was still recent news when the constitution was being written. France formed an air arm to their army in 1793, so the use of air forces when the constitution was written just six years earlier wouldn't have been unthinkable. I doubt foreign spending during peacetime is "necesary" to make war. Yeah, foreign aid to allow US military bases all over the world to house soldiers and refuel all those illegal airplanes don't help the US military effort at all. I doubt you really you think the clause allows Congress to do anything it wants to make war that is not necesary. You're right; I'm just showing you how ridiculous YOUR interpretation is. Congress is not explicitly given the power to regulate air forces, so they can't do it. If you can read the "necessary and proper" clause to add it, it can be read to add foreign aid, too. You just don't want it to be read that way because you don't want congress to do that. But that isn't interpreting the constitution, that's forcing a particular reading onto the constitution to get your predetermined result.

Yep, congress has the power to make war. On land and sea. They aren't granted the authority to regulate air forces, like they are for land and sea. Now, the "necessary and proper" clause appears to allow congress to do absolutely anything, as long as they say it's for the war. Like give foreign aid to other countries, if congress thinks that will help. And if they can do that during the war, they can do that during peacetime too. Unless you agree that the US has to dismantle the air force when there's no active war going on.

Sorry, the constitution clearly says "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" Now, since it explicitly says that congress can regulate only "land and naval forces," congress can only regulate land and naval forces. They can't regulate air forces, space forces, etc. Since congress can only do what's listed, show me where air forces are listed. It lists land and naval forces only.

So the Air Force is out then, right TheScout? Nothing in the constitution about an air force, just an army and navy, and regulations for land and naval forces.

Ah, so everyone who wants to interpret the constitution has to be personally approved by you. What did the USA do before you were born?

Clearly this is some novel use of the word "clearly". Like I said, what this country needs is some group of people whose job is to figure out what the constitution means. If only there was such a group... By the way, Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson's interpretation. So who's interpretation prevails?

"the common defense and general welfare" IS on the list; foreign aid promotes them. You know, maybe there should be a group of people whose job it is to decide what the constitution means, and their opinions carried more weight than a movie review. That would really help.

I keep telling you; stop ignoring what I've written. Giving foreign aid promotes the common defense and general welfare of the US. If you don't agree, that's your problem, isn't it.

I just told you; congress considers the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to be constitutional under their powers of foreign policy, security, and general welfare.

And I missed where the supreme court ruled that foreign aid was unconstitutional. You know, that group where, when they rule against congress doing something, congress stops doing it? They haven't done that yet. Congress apparently considers the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to be constitutional, as it supposedly promotes the foreign policy, security, and general welfare of the United States.

Well, as soon as the supreme court gets around to declaring foreign aid unconstitutional, it'll stop. That is, unless congress and the president agree with you that supreme court rulings can be ignored.

Hey TheScout, where does the constitution prohibit the federal government from financing organizations that, among other things, provide abortions?

Signing a directive reversing a Bush directive back to the way things used to be doesn't take a lot of time, and a lot of people (including me) were glad to see Bush's policy get reversed, and this wasn't the only such policy reversed in the first few days of Obama in office.

Narraticong writes: But within his first week in office, Mr. Obama has made it a priority to change Mr. Bush's Exec Order prohibiting money being sent abroad to fund abortions. When we need to be focusing on our own economy and how to cut spending, Mr. Obama has opted to spend more money overseas. From what I can tell, all his order does is change which organizations are eligible to receive funding; this doesn't mean the total amount of funding available has changed.

I don't always think their opinion are correct, Ed, but they certainly determine what is considered legal and illegal, constitutional and unconstitutional. It's foolish to pretend unpleasant or inconvenient court opinions can simply be ignored.

TheScout writes: It is common for those who do not like what the Constitution says to change the meaning to suit their ends. It's also common for those who don't like what the courts have ruled to ignore those rulings, as if that makes them go away (or claim their rulings can be ignored).

vol_scouter writes: As usual, when faced with the problems in your argument, you resort to insults. Sorry, you're clearly not dealing with reality. You're making up what you "think" Madison would say about current court rulings, and making up out of whole cloth what the first amendment means without regard to decades of court opinions and case law. You simply aren't dealing with the real world, but some fantasy court in your mind. Madison was for the states having a state sponsored, endorsed, or supported religion if they so desired. No, he wasn't "for" it, as is clear by how he argued for religious freedom, but back in Madison's time the first amendment only applied to the federal government, not state governments. This is not at all the same as being "for" it. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a federally mandated religion while allowing the states to do so if they wished. Wrong. The first amendment only applied to the federal government. The first amendment didn't "allow" states to establish a state religion any more than the first amendment "allowed" states to punish public criticism of the governor with execution. And I've pointed out before that Madison didn't consider the first amendment to only prohibit a federall mandated religion. There are two clauses, the first is dealing with non-establishment and the second says that no laws shall be promulgated "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The left wishes to ignore the second clause. Well, I sure don't, but a lot of people think "free exercise" applies to things that aren't citizens, like city councils. As to the courts, there were many rulings that upheld slavery though not really constitutional. What? Slavery wasn't prohibited until the constitution was amended to prohibit slavery. Of COURSE it was constitutional in the past. The courts are not always right. As I citizen, I do not have to agree with a court ruling but I must abide by the ruling until it is changed by other rulings or a law. So why do you continue to insist that the first amendment only prohibits a national religion? The courts don't say that.

I'll deal with the real world, thanks; I won't make up what I "think" Madison would say about the current situation, as making up what dead people supposedly think is a very weak rhetorical device. I much prefer dealing with reality; you, apparently, would rather ignore decades of court rulings in favor of your own fantasies. Let me know when a legal dispute is ever argued in your fantasy court -- I'll continue to just deal with the real one.

I think Roberts ought to have started "I do solemnly swear or affirm...."; the authors of the constitution knew how to write "I (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm)...", but they didn't write it that way.

Ed writes: I know what the 1st Amendment states, Merlyn. God is not a religion. He is a deity! Religions believe in Him. You don't. That's your choice. But having God on US currency or as part of a motto does not establish a religion! NEXT! "Next" would be the courts, which don't agree with you, Ed. skeptic writes: You must be having a stroke right now, if you have been observing the inauguration. Invocations, benedictions, grace, Obama referring to the bible in his speech. Not quite what you hoped for so far, I guess. Oh, for people like you who like to reference religion as a kind of social sledgehammer to pound anyone not of your religion, your taunting observations are hardly new. Your god must be quite proud of you. vol_scouter writes: The amendment was to prevent the federal government to force the states to adopt a federally determined religion. Like all right-wingers, you read the first amendment the way you want it to read, instead of the way Madison regarded it. You know, the guy who wrote it? Several of the original 13 states had state sanctioned religions. Thus, the intention was not to prevent an individual state from having a sanctioned religion but to prevent the federal government from over riding that individual state's religion. Wrong. The first amendment didn't even APPLY to the states until the 14th amendment and incorporation rulings. The first amendment only applied to what the federal government could do, so anything it said, pro or con, only affected the federal government, not state governments. Both amendments have been twisted by judges to suit the views of that judge which was not the intention of the courts by the founding fathers. The founding fathers never heard of the 14th amendment, and Madison's view of the 1st amendment doesn't agree with yours.

SR540Beaver writes: Honestly Merlyn, I've never heard 1 man - 1 woman being advocated. Our meetings and outings center on Scouting activities. Oh, I'm not talking about meetings & outings, I'm talking about anywhere in public, such as in the local newspaper, like the way James Dale was kicked out after he appeared in the college newspaper.

So has the BSA been kicking out people who have been vigorously advocating "1 man - 1 woman" marriage and I've just been missing all the stories?

Now all you have to do is realize that the first amendment talks about an "establishment of religion" and not "a religion", and maybe read a few court opinions.

Ed, you keep trying to deny your god for some reason. You want him on your money, but you deny that your god has anything to do with religion or Christianity. And by the way, the rainbow wig guy (Rollen Stewart) is currently serving 3 life sentences for kidnapping people when he thought the rapture was imminent.