The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

now THAT is playing hardball

That alone should knock down the cbo's projected health care costs. Deficit gone.

[mr_genius]

That alone should knock down the cbo's projected health care costs. Deficit gone.

 

don't be ridiculous. it will have no effect on that.

[StrangeSox]

Twinkies are clogging up our nation's arteries

[mr_genius]

Twinkies are clogging up our nation's arteries

 

the Twinkie brand will simply be sold at auction, maybe to Bain Capital.

[southsider2k5]

the Twinkie brand will simply be sold at auction, maybe to Bain Capital.

 

No way. Bankruptcy is forever. They need a bailout.

[StrangeSox]

It's a s***ty situation for all sides, it seems. People just aren't buying as much of their processed junk foods as they used to.

[Reddy]

It's a s***ty situation for all sides, it seems. People just aren't buying as much of their processed junk foods as they used to.

and this, my friends, is a good thing.

[Jenksismyhero]

the core purpose of the constitution was to strengthen the role of the federal government.

 

I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more.

[mr_genius]

and this, my friends, is a good thing.

 

you better not let those union hostess bakers hear that.

[mr_genius]

No way. Bankruptcy is forever. They need a bailout.

 

Obama can swoop in with a billion dollar check. win some more votes for the 2014 midterms.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more.

 

There was also a reason they ditched the Articles of Confederation and why the Federal government asserted control in the 1860's.

 

edit: and what seemed like a good idea in 1788 might not exactly be the best way to organize and run a modern country, particularly the most powerful and prosperous one on the planet.

Edited November 15, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

you better not let those union hostess bakers hear that.

psh whatever. hostess doing well puts a direct strain on our health care system so it's 6 in one hand, half dozen the other.

 

[Jake]

I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more.

 

I think his main point was that there is a general movement towards the strengthening of federal government. This isn't authoritarianism or communism (which, by the way, is meant to be zero government) but rather reflective of our changing world. There are fewer and fewer things that only concern the local. This is why the Constitution had to settle the issue of every state having their own currency -- states' rights, woo!! No -- some things can't be left to the states to decide not because Illinois can't make decisions, but because 51 different decisions are not compatible in a world where even national boundaries are easily crossed. State and local governments play an integral role in implementing national policy and can still make decisions that it actually makes sense to make. Does my hometown, Pontiac, need to boost funding to fill in some potholes? Sure, we won't run that one by the President.

 

In 1850, interstate travel was near crazy talk unless there was a very particular and important reason. Now, the federal government necessarily manages the interstate highway system because we cross state borders all the time and honestly, nobody outside of Texas really gives a s*** about what state they live in.

 

The most irksome part of this is that states' rights arguments are almost always made in context of social regulations. We continually leave civil and human rights arguments to the states, like the rights of racial minorities, women, gays, etc. should really vary locally. Bulls***! Likewise, we have a complete clusterf*** with the marijuana issue now. Not only are we now allowing states to make decisions on this, we are letting them make decisions that directly contradict the federal law. In this case, we need to first remove the federal restriction and yield to the states. Further down the line, the federal government needs to make a decision on it once people are more comfortable with the idea. Unfortunately, given the current setup, the only legal thing the federal government can do is crack down on all these violators of federal law in the states. The system is s***. This also applies to all this BS like alcohol regulations -- in one state, kids can drink under parent supervision, in another you can have an open container in your car, in another you can't buy it on Sunday, somewhere else you can only sell certain types of alcohol in certain locations. That's stupid, there is no good reason for that to be different every place you go.

 

Etc.

[StrangeSox]

OTOH the states may end up forcing the Fed's hands on the marijuana issue.

[bmags]

I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more.

 

"The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states."

 

The articles of confederation created general rules for the emerging nation of collective states, as well.

[StrangeSox]

It's also hard to say that a complex political document that was debated and eventually agreed to by many different people had one specific or well-defined goal. It's not like there weren't intense political disagreements about what the government should do back then. Hamilton and Jefferson had essentially the same arguments before and after ratification.

[StrangeSox]

[mr_genius]

 

that's unusual, as FOX news has been trying to convince their viewers to support amnesty. Even Hannity was doing it.

 

[farmteam]

I don't think this is true. As the constitution was written, and for decades after, the role of the federal government was still in dispute. The goal of the constitution was to create the general rules for the emerging nation of collective states. There's a reason it was called the United States of America and not just America. Individual states wanted to retain the majority of the control over its land/citizens. But over 250+ years later that distinction has eroded more and more.

I think you're both kinda right. The Articles of Confederation were seen as a failure, in part because the federal government was not strong enough. However, the Constitution was still set up to limit the federal government as much as it reasonably could be.

 

Don't forget the importance of our constitution being written, either. Not all are.

[StrangeSox]

I think Hamilton would have disagreed with that description of the constitution.

[farmteam]

I think Hamilton would have disagreed with that description of the constitution.

He probably would have. So would Jefferson. And Madison. And Adams.

 

But Hamilton wasn't the only architect of the Constitution. There were many. It's impossible to look at one, or even a few, of the most influential guys at the Constitutional Bongresses and say "This is what the Constitution means" because the Constitution is the end result of years of debate, and no single person could say that end result was exactly what it should be...but as a group, they could.

 

EDIT: "Bongresses" was obviously a typo, but it's a funny one that provides a great mental image of what was REALLY going on in Philly in the late 1780s, so I'm gonna leave it.

Edited November 15, 2012 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

But that's where I disagree. Even after ratification, Hamilton and Jefferson had very, very strong disagreements on the proper role of the federal government. They don't exactly mirror today's, but they come strikingly close. Jefferson wanted a minimalist federal government with an agrarian society, Hamilton wanted a strong central government that actively invested in industry. I think Jefferson would agree with framing the Constitution as limiting the government as much as reasonably possible but that Hamilton would not.

[farmteam]

But that's where I disagree. Even after ratification, Hamilton and Jefferson had very, very strong disagreements on the proper role of the federal government. They don't exactly mirror today's, but they come strikingly close. Jefferson wanted a minimalist federal government with an agrarian society, Hamilton wanted a strong central government that actively invested in industry. I think Jefferson would agree with framing the Constitution as limiting the government as much as reasonably possible but that Hamilton would not.

Of course they disagreed, just like everyone else. My point is that at the end of the day, they decided to sign their names to the Constitution we have -- those signatures were the agreement that this was the way the country would be governed. Otherwise, the debate would have continued.

 

EDIT: As to your last two sentences, that's more reflected in how the Constitution was/is interpreted after its initial passage, I think. Hamilton had a really good interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause that I like. I can't remember if it was part of the Federalist Papers or not, but I think it was.

Edited November 15, 2012 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

I'm saying that those disagreements did continue. Jefferson and Hamilton (and the factions they represented) were at each other's throats for years. The easiest example was Hamilton's push for a US Mint and national bank and Jefferson's and Madison's opposition to it on Constitutional grounds.

 

I don't think we're really disagreeing much here. The people who wrote and signed the documents couldn't even agree to its limits. So as you said, it's foolish to say "This is what the Constitution means" as if there is or ever was some singular, objective meaning.

[Jake]

I think part of signing it was with the knowledge that it would be malleable and the government might look rather different, even without amending, based on what people wanted. They'd certainly be flattered at the religious fervor with which most Americans see it today, but it really is sad. Americans don't ask "what is the best way to run the country?" They say, "what is the most constitutional?" This is not to say that we should go directly against the Constitution, but rather we should seek to make the Constitution run the country correctly. If it doesn't allow that, we should try to amend it. If we can't amend it, we'll have to wait until we can. Whether or not anything we do is in the "spirit" of the Constitution is really irrelevant though. That was just too long ago.