A New Series: Unconstitutional

[anEinherjer]

So, for the fun of it, and to try to educate some of you boobs :D, I'm proposing a new series of threads displaying programs and agencies at the federal level that are, or ****ing well should be, considered Unconstitutional.

First off, I'd like to poke fun at the Federal Transit Administration, part of the DOT. Here's a great program http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/default.asp

Why does it exist? Is this something that ONLY can be handled by government? Is there a line somewhere in the Consitution that says this program can exist? I think most of us would agree that a nationwide road network is necessary for the national defense, and certainly fits under the Commerce clause. But ITS (Intelligent Transit Systems)? Most of this garbage is busy work for bureaucrats dealing with local transit agencies - public transit at the CITY, or maybe county, level.

What possible Consitutional justification can there be for its existance?

[sukie]

Yes but is it unconstitutional? Therein lies the death of the question.

[nehemiah]

yeah, anEin.

let's hear your argument first.

[35Pete]

How about Aid To Families Of Dependant Children? Where TF in the constitution is that written?

[nehemiah]

How about Aid To Families Of Dependant Children? Where TF in the constitution is that written?:dunno:

that program doesn't even exist anymore, dude.

try again.

[35Pete]

:dunno:

that program doesn't even exist anymore, dude.

try again.
Yeah. What's it's NEW acronym? What guise does it operate under now?

[nehemiah]

Yeah. What's it's NEW acronym? What guise does it operate under now?don quixote tilting at windmills.

[anEinherjer]

yeah, anEin.

let's hear your argument first.

My argument is simple: There is nothing in the Constitution that allows its existance, therefore it should not exist.

My guess is the justification is based on the ever-expanding Commerce clause, but that argument is sheer nonsense. There's nothing "amongst the states" that I can figure about Buffalo's mass-transit system. Even less when it's some rural bus service in North Dakota.

The question should not be "is it unconstitutional?" but rather "is it Constitutional?" If you cannot answer the second in the affirmative, it SHOULD NOT BE. Period. FACT. :D

And Pete, no hurry, I'll start other threads on HHS eventually. There's so much crap to get to!

[sukie]

Well the wuss-like leftist response is the preamble. All these things promote the "General Welfare"... yawn.

[JLB]

Do we all get a free Easy Pass if so I'm for whatever your suggesting today.

[nehemiah]

well... please find (and post) the passages in the constitution dealing with: nuclear weapons, the space program, firefighters, and the police. what about roads? they didn't even have cars, man! get rid of the roads!

there is no affirmative mention of those things either.

*cough, cough* cherrypickers.

this whole strict constitutionballizationism is horseshit. i burp at it. :burp:

[sukie]

Nukes falls under military, roads is the general welfare and I know of no federal fire fighters or police (minus FBI)

[35Pete]

Well the wuss-like leftist response is the preamble. All these things promote the "General Welfare"... yawn.
There are 8,063 words in the Constitution. I think it is blatently dishonest to drive the growth of government based on 4 words out of 8,000.

[nehemiah]

Well the wuss-like leftist response is the preamble. All these things promote the "General Welfare"... yawn.
Nukes falls under military, roads is the general welfare and I know of no federal fire fighters or police (minus FBI)
[:::]

[nehemiah]

There are 8,063 words in the Constitution. I think it is blatently dishonest to drive the growth of government based on 4 words out of 8,000.every word counts.

you're not a strict constitutionalisnatiozationdschnizmist if you remove some words, dude.

[35Pete]

[:::]
Those words are in the preamble and comprise 0.05% of the document.

[nehemiah]

Those words are in the preamble and comprise 0.05% of the document.a strict constitutionalizationalist would NEVER post something like this.

NEVER.

so stop lyin'.

[г]

The DOT puts those cool stickers inside motorcycle helmets

[sukie]

[:::]
Infrastructure of a nation provides for it's general welfare.
Stop it.

[nehemiah]

Infrastructure of a nation provides for it's general welfare.
Stop it.you did it, homie. you gonna get angry with me for actually reading your posts?

and, for the record, the constitution is explicit in that congress can provide for "post roads".

so any road that does not have mail traveling on it? you be out of luck.

we have to get rid of the internets too.

[gilchristfan]

This is a funny thread.

[shiva2999]

Infrastructure of a nation provides for it's general welfare.
Stop it.

Health care is infrastructure too!

Nice to see you coming around sukie!

When are you going to follow Pete out of the Republican Party?

[nehemiah]

:burp: i burp at gil, too.

[г]

I like the part about the perfect unions

[sukie]

Healthcare is not infrastructure bridges, roads, ports, dams etc. Post roads (twinkie [---]), were to facilitate the post office (same sentence).

[gilchristfan]

"infrastructure" isn't in the constitution.

[35Pete]

Health care is infrastructure too!

Nice to see you coming around sukie!

When are you going to follow Pete out of the Republican Party?
Healthcare is a commodity.

[г]

So is military hardware...

[shiva2999]

Healthcare is a commodity.

Hard to have a functioning society if everyone's sick.

[anEinherjer]

well... please find (and post) the passages in the constitution dealing with: nuclear weapons, the space program, firefighters, and the police. what about roads? they didn't even have cars, man! get rid of the roads!

there is no affirmative mention of those things either.

*cough, cough* cherrypickers.

this whole strict constitutionballizationism is horseshit. i burp at it. :burp:

Give me time, Nehemiah, give me time. I will work up to the bigger ones. But if you want a quick interpretation: Defense, private, private/local, private/local, private/local except for interstates (and US highways) which count as national defense.

Next!

[anEinherjer]

By the way, noone can tell me why ITS exists in the DOT, so as far as I'm concerned, it's gone. Which agency shall I chop from next?

[35Pete]

How about:

The Dept. of Education
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of the Interior
Interstate Commerce Commssion
Department of Health And Human Handouts.

[gilchristfan]

except for interstates (and US highways) which count as national defense.

Next!

Now you see, if you can count interstates as a part of national defense, you can count subways too. (Hiding from bomb attacks). That's actually alot more likely than Russian tanks rolling down I-70.

Come to think of it, you could count buses for evacuation after a bombing.

You [i]know[i/] if NO got bombed, Nagin would be screaming:

"WHERE THE HELL ARE THE 500 BUSES?"

Its all a matter of perspective.

[uppy]

The Dept. of Education should NOT be part of the Fed goverment...If the states want to have public education its their coin.

[nehemiah]

health care and education are both part of the national defense.

not to mention being part of the general welfare.

and roads are not needed for national defense... ever hear of "airplanes", or "missiles"? roads hinder our national defense b/c lowly countries who still fight with tanks can use them to attack our women and slaughter our children.

[sukie]

Nehe... cut it out. Constitutionalists base everything on the founding father's framing. there were no airplanes. We had 13 colonies... Period. I know that the constitution has to change with the times. That is my beef with the so called constitutionalists... They interpret just as much as the people they call out as unconstitutionalists. When did education become federally funded?

[nehemiah]

nehe is serious.

healthy people kill better.

smarter people kill better.

national defense in yo' face, bitches. :rockon:

[uppy]

nehe is serious.



smarter people kill better.

national defense in yo' face, bitches. :rockon:

Right on King..thats why we have USMA,USNA,USAFA and the USCGA

[sukie]

Heathy people? Healthcare doesn't promote health. You missed class that day?

[uppy]

Heathy people? Healthcare doesn't promote health. You missed class that day?

It promotes some Jobs for soical workers

[sukie]

:rofl: I think state money does that as well.

[35Pete]

Nehe... cut it out. Constitutionalists base everything on the founding father's framing. there were no airplanes. We had 13 colonies... Period. I know that the constitution has to change with the times. That is my beef with the so called constitutionalists... They interpret just as much as the people they call out as unconstitutionalists. When did education become federally funded?
Problem is that you people make shit up as you go along. Therefore there is no contract with the populace and no framework.

The founders made the constitution timeless. To protect me from people like you and nehemiah and all of your "good ideas".

[nehemiah]

Problem is that you people make shit up as you go along. Therefore there is no contract with the populace and no framework.

The founders made the constitution timeless. To protect me from people like you and nehemiah and all of your "good ideas".:rofl:

[:::]

[K-Gun]

The Dept. of Education should NOT be part of the Fed goverment...If the states want to have public education its their coin.

I didn't get no edjewmakation and look at me.

[sukie]

Problem is that you people make shit up as you go along. Therefore there is no contract with the populace and no framework.

The founders made the constitution timeless. To protect me from people like you and nehemiah and all of your "good ideas".
Post a good idea I have intimated at? It took the supreme court to include expression as one of our freedoms but yet you, Pete think Jefferson et al "meant that."

[coastal]

Problem is that you people make shit up as you go along. Therefore there is no contract with the populace and no framework.

The founders made the constitution timeless. To protect me from people like you and nehemiah and all of your "good ideas".
This is one of the best posts I have ever seen from you Pete.

Now don't go all ga-ga becuase I said that and expound on and hence ruin the experience for me.

just say thank you and go about your way!

[uppy]

Now don't go all ga-ga becuase I said that and expound on and hence ruin the experience for me.

just say thank you and go about your way!


http://www.beckerfilms.com/JackNicholson.gif

[anEinherjer]

health care and education are both part of the national defense.

not to mention being part of the general welfare.

and roads are not needed for national defense... ever hear of "airplanes", or "missiles"? roads hinder our national defense b/c lowly countries who still fight with tanks can use them to attack our women and slaughter our children.

Wrong. If you think a war could ever be fought and won without ground troops you're a neocon. :D

Healthcare and education have nothing to do with "national defense". Sorry. And if you're going to apply every aspect of your life to the "general welfare" hyperbole, you might as well join the communist party, which is patently NOT what the founders were after....

[35Pete]

This is one of the best posts I have ever seen from you Pete.

Now don't go all ga-ga becuase I said that and expound on and hence ruin the experience for me.

just say thank you and go about your way!
Thanks coastal. When I read this I got so excited that I busted a nut.

[JLB]

Thanks coastal. When I read this I so excited that I busted a nut.



:rofl:

It's just such an honor where to you find the words?

[nehemiah]

Wrong. If you think a war could ever be fought and won without ground troops you're a neocon. :D

Healthcare and education have nothing to do with "national defense". Sorry. And if you're going to apply every aspect of your life to the "general welfare" hyperbole, you might as well join the communist party, which is patently NOT what the founders were after....who is applying everything to the "general welfare" clause? i said two things: healthcare and education. when did that become "everything"?

healthcare and education do apply to the national defense.

and if they don't, they sure as shit apply to the general welfare.

[г]

Perfect Union ? General Welfare ?

[anEinherjer]

Nehemiah, I disagree except in the case of education and healthcare for military - both active and retired. The GI Bill? Fine by me, I don't know the details, but let them learn whatever they want. VA hospitals - stupid. Give free healthcare to vets (I'm appreciative enough of our volunteer force that I'd give them free healthcare for ANY healthcare needs they have, derived from their service or at any time before or after). Let them choose their own healthcare provider.

The federal gov't is not there, however, to provide "welfare" in general. That goes against the entire concept of a limited government and you well know it.

[35Pete]

Nehemiah, I disagree except in the case of education and healthcare for military - both active and retired. The GI Bill? Fine by me, I don't know the details, but let them learn whatever they want. VA hospitals - stupid. Give free healthcare to vets (I'm appreciative enough of our volunteer force that I'd give them free healthcare for ANY healthcare needs they have, derived from their service or at any time before or after). Let them choose their own healthcare provider.

The federal gov't is not there, however, to provide "welfare" in general. That goes against the entire concept of a limited government and you well know it.
No. He wants to grab onto 2 words in the document and ignore the rest.

[nehemiah]

No. He wants to grab onto 2 words in the document and ignore the rest.that seals it.

if you ever post that you're a strict constitutionalist... you and me are fighting.

:box:

[35Pete]

that seals it.

if you ever post that you're a strict constitutionalist... you and me are fighting.

:box:
No you do not understand the document. Those words are in the PREAMBLE, not the body of the document. Show me an amendment that states that Welfare should be an interest of the government. Show me.

[gilchristfan]

No. He wants to grab onto 2 words in the document and ignore the rest.

Due Process?

[gilchristfan]

No you do not understand the document. Those words are in the PREAMBLE, not the body of the document. Show me an amendment that states that Welfare should be an interest of the government. Show me.


Why do you need an amendment for it? Its already in the document in chief. Paragraph 1.

[uppy]

Nehemiah, I disagree except in the case of education and healthcare for military - both active and retired. The GI Bill? Fine by me, I don't know the details, but let them learn whatever they want. VA hospitals - stupid. Give free healthcare to vets (I'm appreciative enough of our volunteer force that I'd give them free healthcare for ANY healthcare needs they have, derived from their service or at any time before or after). Let them choose their own healthcare provider.

The federal gov't is not there, however, to provide "welfare" in general. That goes against the entire concept of a limited government and you well know it.


+10

[nehemiah]

like i said. don quixote tilting at windmills.

noble? perhaps... stupid? most definitely.

[Bpaup95]

No you do not understand the document. Those words are in the PREAMBLE, not the body of the document. Show me an amendment that states that Welfare should be an interest of the government. Show me.

"General Welfare" is used again.

Article 1
Section 8

Scope of Legislative Power

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

strict constructionism is stupid

[K-Gun]

"General Welfare" is used again.

Article 1
Section 8

Scope of Legislative Power

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

strict constructionism is stupid

Especially when its proponents don't read the whole document, tee hee.

[35Pete]

Especially when its proponents don't read the whole document, tee hee.
I quote it more than you guys do. And there are 8,000 words in the doc. I missed one.

[nehemiah]

quoting it don't mean jack.

we LIVE it, baby! L.I.V.I.N. IT, MAN!

[anEinherjer]

Funny how you statists read that and ignore the rest of the sentence. To me it says in plain English "general welfare of the United States". I could be wrong though, that might not be the wording, I'm only going by a quote from a few posts ago.

Two thoughts and I'll give up spreading this thread out farther than it already is:
1. I see that sentence meaning "the nation", not "the people of the nation". I'm sure you statists disagree.
2. Since any and all social programs could qualify under a banner of "general welfare of the people of the U.S.", is there any possible government program that you guys would reject? I mean, if that's your interpretation, then providing federal assistance to silly little podunk bus services (which is what this thread was originally about, natch) could certainly apply. Your interpretation guts certain later Amendments (9th, 10th), don't they?

[anEinherjer]

My general welfare would be vastly improved if you guys would pay for me to get a new TV. k thx bye.

[uppy]

I agree it means the nation and not welfare for the people.