Well Obama got the nobel peace prize.
-
For those keeping track, the section I quoted was a copy paste of the transcript of the interview that Gary posted. I forgot to note where exactly I found the transcript, and frankly I don't remember exactly which website I found it at (its on quite a few). Sorry.
-
I gotta say chuck, though i do disagree with what you post when you go left on us, you do make a damn good argument.
I would have to say that if an amendment was passed regarding public education i would be all for it. BUT only if it was passed with a constitutional convention by the states, and not by some legislative nonsense by a room full of Pelosi types.And about that video, ive looked into it as well. I really dont see how that text can even be taken out of context. You repeat it anyway you want and it just doesnt fit any other way than as a direct quote.
-
As for the schools not being in the constitution as a guarantee, I can concede that. I would also say that this may be one of the flaws I see in the constitution.
If the US constitution is a negative liberties document, how does a positive right like "guaranteed public school" make any sense there? Please make sure you're familiar with negative & positive rights/liberties. Wikipedia has sufficient content to clear it up if you need to brush up at all.
Let me ask you a direct question on this then: If the constitution were amended to somehow guarantee the right to attend a public educational institution (IE our existing school districts) and it went through all of the required steps to amend the constitution, etc.... would you then accept this as part of the US Constitution?
No.
There are a number of other amendments that I also think are somewhere between illconceived and just plain illegal.
Would public schools be ok then?
They're [legally] "ok" now -- they just shouldn't even be on the radar at the *federal *government level.
If so and lets say the movement started with a community organization, wouldn't Obama be technically correct in saying that the best way to achieve that type of change is not through the courts?
Oh, he's absolutely correct that the courts are not the way to effect this type of thing.
-
Grr;291988 wrote:
I gotta say chuck, though i do disagree with what you post when you go left on us, you do make a damn good argument.
I would have to say that if an amendment was passed regarding public education i would be all for it. BUT only if it was passed with a constitutional convention by the states, and not by some legislative nonsense by a room full of Pelosi types.Thanks, I try. As for the constitutional convention by the states, wouldn't our representatives be the ones voting at that anyway....isn't that how all amendments get passed?
And about that video, ive looked into it as well. I really dont see how that text can even be taken out of context. You repeat it anyway you want and it just doesnt fit any other way than as a direct quote.
By out of context I kind of covered what I meant in my last post on this....Read the bold part that is in the quote as well, I should have broken this out to show my viewpoint.
I think what he was saying is that the courts didn't (and aren't suited to) making the types of changes that he mentioned and that if such changes were to take place the only way that it should happen is from the will of the people and through a movement and ultimately a constitutional amendment (which he didn't state, though I'm assuming he was implying).
I think the negative liberties that he speaks of are that the constitution says what the Government can't do to you and that he'd like to see a few things that the government can/will do for you. Whether that be Schools/Healthcare/Whatever and if they are good or not is up for debate of course. I am on the side of public education (I've seen what happens to people who don't get an education) and against the side of publicly funded health care (mostly).
-
I do have another constitutional question for thrash (or anyone else willing to take a stab at it):
Was the Louisiana Purchase constitutional? The constitution does not grant the Gov't the authority to purchase new land, yet that is exactly what we did under Thomas Jefferson...without even the consent of congress. So the question is, if this is unconstitutional, should we not give the land back to France (or even Spain)? Then there is the whole Alaska/Hawaii/other US owned islands issue....
-
Trafik Jamz;292046 wrote:
I do have another constitutional question for thrash (or anyone else willing to take a stab at it):Was the Louisiana Purchase constitutional? The constitution does not grant the Gov't the authority to purchase new land, yet that is exactly what we did under Thomas Jefferson...without even the consent of congress. So the question is, if this is unconstitutional, should we not give the land back to France (or even Spain)? Then there is the whole Alaska/Hawaii/other US owned islands issue....
Chuck:
Congress did give consent to Thomas Jefferson's request for James Monroe and Robert Livingston to enter into treaty with France. They appropriated $2,000,000 for the purchase of Louisiana itself. Once the treaty was signed by James Monroe and Robert Livingston it was ratified by the senate and then the house. Both houses of congress also signed into law acts allowing the president to complete the deal, and lastly authorizing payment for the purchase after the land was signed over to the united states. So although not specifically enumerated by the constitution, it is not like he just signed a treaty agreeing to the purchase.
The purchase was also made in the interest of national security based around intel known about the French military. The downside to the purchase, is that it did leave room for argument around the idea of the implied power of the United States Government.
Now had the federal government attempted to aquire land inside a state without due process it would have been a completely different story. The federal government cannot buy land inside a STATE without the state government relinquishing control of the land to the federal government.
-
integra_gsr98;292049 wrote:
Chuck:Congress did give consent to Thomas Jefferson's request for James Monroe and Robert Livingston to enter into treaty with France. They appropriated $2,000,000 for the purchase of Louisiana itself. Once the treaty was signed by James Monroe and Robert Livingston it was ratified by the senate and then the house. Both houses of congress also signed into law acts allowing the president to complete the deal, and lastly authorizing payment for the purchase after the land was signed over to the united states. So although not specifically enumerated by the constitution, it is not like he just signed a treaty agreeing to the purchase.
The purchase was also made in the interest of national security based around intel known about the French military. The downside to the purchase, is that it did leave room for argument around the idea of the implied power of the United States Government.
Now had the federal government attempted to aquire land inside a state without due process it would have been a completely different story. The federal government cannot buy land inside a STATE without the state government relinquishing control of the land to the federal government.
owned???
-
I don't have a strong opinion on it, and I'm not well educated on the issue.
The constitutional argument for doing so, apart from trying to tie it back to national defense, was that the federal government did have the power to make treaties, and it also had the power to manage US territories and the acquisition therof. The fact that Jefferson wavered on how to do it ought to give people pause.
The most interesting part of the deal IMO was that the US apparently forgave some french held debt that was owed to US citizens. I only got that in one blurb that I read and if I interpret that correctly, how were the US citizens compensated? It seems like a ferocious problem to untangle if the US government simply told some citizens, "you lose".
-
integra_gsr98;292049 wrote:
Congress did give consent to Thomas Jefferson's request for James Monroe and Robert Livingston to enter into treaty with France. They appropriated $2,000,000 for the purchase of Louisiana itself. Once the treaty was signed by James Monroe and Robert Livingston it was ratified by the senate and then the house. Both houses of congress also signed into law acts allowing the president to complete the deal, and lastly authorizing payment for the purchase after the land was signed over to the united states. So although not specifically enumerated by the constitution, it is not like he just signed a treaty agreeing to the purchase.Close, but not quite right there Nick. They were sent to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans from France. Once they got there Napoleon offered them all of Louisiana (the territory, not the state). Monroe & Livingston acted swiftly without consulting the president or congress and signed the purchase (treaty). After returning home the treaty was ratified by congress in October of that year.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h476.html wrote:
The Louisiana region once encompassed an area much larger than the present state. It referred to the area west of the Mississippi River which was drained by the Red, Arkansas, and Missouri rivers — a huge land of more than 800,000 square miles. Louisiana had been claimed for France by LaSalle in 1682 and named to honor Louis XIV. It became a formal French colony in 1731 and remained so until it was ceded to Spain in 1762.
In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson received word that Louisiana was about to be returned to French control. This was a matter of concern to the president; Spain was a declining power and offered no threat to the United States. Such was not the case with France under Napoleon. James Monroe was dispatched to Paris to supplement the American mission led by Robert Livingston. Monroe was instructed to try to purchase New Orleans and Florida. The former was vitally important to westerners because it controlled the outlet into the Gulf of Mexico.
Before Monroe arrived, the French foreign minister Talleyrand shocked Livingston by offering to sell the entirety of Louisiana. Napoleon was at war with Britain and thought it unwise to court distraction by having to defend New Orleans. Monroe helped complete the deal after his arrival, settling on a price of $11.25 million, plus the cancellation of American claims against the French in the amount of $3.75 million, for a total of $15 million.
Jefferson was astounded when presented with the details of the purchase. <u>He had severe doubts about the constitutionality of acquiring land through purchase because the Constitution did not address that issue</u>. However, he feared that Napoleon would change his mind if America waited to ratify a constitutional amendment. Demonstrating great flexibility, Jefferson ignored party considerations and submitted the treaty to the Senate where it was overwhelmingly ratified.The purchase was also made in the interest of national security based around intel known about the French military. The downside to the purchase, is that it did leave room for argument around the idea of the implied power of the United States Government.
Now had the federal government attempted to aquire land inside a state without due process it would have been a completely different story. The federal government cannot buy land inside a STATE without the state government relinquishing control of the land to the federal government.
I agree with the 2nd paragraph here, so I'm only going to address the 1st. Since the Constitution is a document of Negative Liberties and clearly does not even address the idea of growth/expansion I would say that (by everyone who is arguing pro-constitution) the whole deal was not constitutional. If that is not the case, then any bail outs, social programs, etc... should be constitutional because, they are after all, approved by congress and therefore is well within the implied power of the US Government.
Thank you for making my point.
-
Since the Constitution is a document of Negative Liberties and clearly does not even address the idea of growth/expansion I would say that (by everyone who is arguing pro-constitution) the whole deal was not constitutional.
If that is not the case, then any bail outs, social programs, etc... should be constitutional because, they are after all, approved by congress and therefore is well within the implied power of the US Government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Dichotomy
It is pretty obviously *not *the case that "whatever congress says" is de-facto constitutional.
Also, you missed or chose to ignore my post.
The constitutional authority was based on the ability to deal with territories, and the ability to engage in treaties. Both are constitutionally granted powers. The specific issue of constitutionality appears to be paying money to acquire territory. The supreme court apparently did review the legality of the Louisiana Purchase; reading their written arguments would be interesting.
-
Trafik Jamz;292070 wrote:
Close, but not quite right there Nick. They were sent to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans from France. Once they got there Napoleon offered them all of Louisiana (the territory, not the state). Monroe & Livingston acted swiftly without consulting the president or congress and signed the purchase (treaty). After returning home the treaty was ratified by congress in October of that year.Correct but the treaty -WAS- ratified and the purchase was not made official and funds were NOT transferred until the treaty was ratified. They didn't sign a treaty and cut a check when they were in France.
Trafik Jamz;292070 wrote:
I agree with the 2nd paragraph here, so I'm only going to address the 1st. Since the Constitution is a document of Negative Liberties and clearly does not even address the idea of growth/expansion I would say that (by everyone who is arguing pro-constitution) the whole deal was not constitutional. If that is not the case, then any bail outs, social programs, etc... should be constitutional because, they are after all, approved by congress and therefore is well within the implied power of the US Government.Thank you for making my point.
Using the Louisiana Purchase to justify auto maker/bank/corporate bailouts, bullshit social programs, health care, and other programs that "correct social injustice" is a TERRIBLE comparison. Like I also stated, the issue with the purchase was that it did lead to the argument and abuse of the "implied power" of the US Government.
-
1st thrash, I pretty much agreed with your post before, so I didn't respond.
2nd Nick, I am not in favor of a gov't option or a lot of other social programs. I am not saying one thing justifies another but rather stating that the Constitution has been "flexible" in the past on issues and that if you want to roll back the "bad programs" you should not hesitate to roll back the "good" ones either.
http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us6.htm
and more from http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/education/psd/nation/louisi.htm
Thomas Jefferson to John Breckinridge, 12 August 1803
The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them, unauthorized, what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it.
*excerpt
John Quincy Adams to the U.S. Senate, 3 November 1803*
It has been argued that the bill ought not to pass because the treaty itself is unconstitutional. . . . For my own part, I am free to confess that the third article, and more especially the seventh, contain engagements placing us in a dilemma from which I see no possible way of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather an addition, to the Constitution. . . . But what is this more than saying that the President and Senate have bound the nation to engagements which require the cooperation of more extensive powers than theirs to carry them into execution? Nothing is more common, in the negotiations between nation and nation, than for a minister to agree to and sign articles beyond the extent of his powers. This is what your ministers, in the very case before you, have confessedly done. It is well know that their powers did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the benefit of their country, and this House by a large majority has advised to the ratification of their proceedings. . . . such is the public favor attending the transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which, I hope, will terminate in our full, undisturbed, and undisputed possession of the ceded territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the Constitution . . . shall be proposed, as I think it ought; it will be adopted by the legislature of every State in the Union. We can therefore fulfill our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a right to required of us.
*excerpt
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login