"I Hope Obama Fails"

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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?

[TheScout]

Jefferson's. He actually cared about the Constitution and did not want to manipulate it to create a great bureaucratic military state like Hamilton did.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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?

[TheScout]

No, its actually quite easy. If it is on the list, they can do it.

 

Congress can make post roads, build an army, coin money, etc. Its all on the list. If it isn't on the list, they can't do it.

 

Any small child can read a list.

[John-in-KC]

Merlyn said 1961....

 

That means Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger all bought in.

 

It may not be on the list, TheScout, but it's been bought into by the Executive Branch....

 

So, my question for both of you: Is this horse dead yet? It's been beaten on for two pages...

[TheScout]

Not until we start following the Constitution again. Somebody has to stand up for it. It isn't just about warrantless wiretaps.

[Narraticong]

When my wife and I got married, we both worked full time at good jobs. When it came time to purchase a home and raise a family, we decided to live within our means, not stretch them to the limit. We bought a comfortable, but not extravagant, house. We bought practical, not flashy, vehicles. We did not overextend credit. We saved what we could.

 

Now, twenty years later, with times as tough as they are, either one of us may lose our jobs at any time. She is in the banking industry and I work for a newspaper. Two industries travelling down rough roads.

 

But, having managed our finances frugally, we will weather this storm. We are watching our expenditures. My FOS contribution won't be as large as usual.

 

It matters not whether the Constitution allows for foreign aid. It surely does not say the United States must support all other countries as our own sinks into oblivion. Is it too much to ask our elected officials to treat our tax money with respect? Is it too much to ask them to be as frugal with our tax money as my wife and I are with what is left to us?

 

I don't care whether they are Republican, Democrat, Independent. Stop the madness. No more pork. No more unecessary spending until this mess is cleared up. Just stop!(This message has been edited by Narraticong)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[TheScout]

Article I, Section 8:

 

The Congress shall have power. . .

 

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

 

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

 

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;

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

 

Article I, Section 9:

 

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

 

Article I, Section 8:

 

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

It seems Congress clearly has the exclusive authority to wage war and build the forces to do so. If there is power so necesary to carrying into execution one of the constitutional powers, it is the need to have an Air Force to wage war. Not a single modern military thinker would think so. Even you should have known this.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[TheScout]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make war. That is listed.

 

The Necesarry and Proper Clause allows Congress to do all things "necesary and proper" to carry out all previous powers. Creation of an Air Force is necesary and proper to make war. All military thinkers agree on this.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[TheScout]

Well war in the air did not occur when the the Constitution was written. Congress was clearly given the authority to make war. That was the meaning of the said articles. It is necesary for war now.

 

I doubt foreign spending during peacetime is "necesary" to make war. Every single military figure would think an air force is necesary. Many less would think so for foreign aid in peacetime.

 

I doubt you really you think the clause allows Congress to do anything it wants to make war that is not necesary. What if Congress wanted to build 10 Commandments monuments everywhere to enhance the morality of our citizenry so they make better soldiers?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[TheScout]

Why is the 2 year funding limit obsolete? This is one of the greatest principles of the English constitution that was brought to America. This shows how you have no conception of tyranny other than your silly anti-religion crusade.

 

Recall at early times all air arms were part of the either the Army of the Navy. Nobody would have thought it would expand so to merit its own branch.

 

Maintaining foreign bases and paying rent for them is different than foreign aid. What about all the countries we aid with no bases?

 

You seem to warp the meaning of the word necesary. I don't blame you. Big government people have been doing it for a long time. They don't like to stick to things that are clearly necesary like an Air Force to wage war.

 

Read Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Nationl Bank again. It is quite good and explains this better than I ever could.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

 

Under your theory, what is the point of the list?