If you had to pick one of these amendments...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:00:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  If you had to pick one of these amendments...
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ...
#1
Liberty Amendment
 
#2
Federal Marriage Amendment
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 19

Author Topic: If you had to pick one of these amendments...  (Read 4923 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 03, 2005, 10:31:06 PM »

To become part of the Constitution, which would you pick?

http://libertyamendment.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2005, 11:03:44 PM »

The one that restricts the government's power to the largest degree. Guess which one that is.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2005, 02:10:39 AM »

The Liberty Amendment, of course
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2005, 02:50:42 AM »

The one that restricts the government's power to the largest degree. Guess which one that is.

um, uhhhhh, ahhhh, is it the marraige amendment?
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2005, 04:46:21 AM »

FMA
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2005, 08:06:22 AM »

The one that restricts the government's power to the largest degree. Guess which one that is.

um, uhhhhh, ahhhh, is it the marraige amendment?

*THWACK*
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2005, 09:16:13 AM »

FMA, but I would prefer this language:

This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2005, 11:23:54 AM »

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world; this amendment doesn't change that. (Note that by apply, I mean apply, not make up).
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2005, 02:41:27 PM »

FMA, but I would prefer this language:

This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

We could always amend the constitution to allow it. Tongue
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2005, 02:52:40 PM »

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world; this amendment doesn't change that. (Note that by apply, I mean apply, not make up).

It's in the same clause that says " general Welfare," so I don't understand how this amendment could not effect it.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2005, 03:41:18 PM »

Under the "Liberty Amendment" I'm not entirely sure we could have an Air Force.

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world; this amendment doesn't change that. (Note that by apply, I mean apply, not make up).

It's in the same clause that says " general Welfare," so I don't understand how this amendment could not effect it.

Defense is a specified power. Spending money and farmers is not a specified power.

Really, this amendment should be almost useless, since Congress already has no constitutional authority to do most of this stuff, and if the Supreme Court won't interpret the original text honestly, they might as well ignore this text as well.

The exception is the income tax, which would force them to get out of a bunch of unconstitutional endeavors.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2005, 03:51:06 PM »

I suppose if I were forced to choose between two of the most perfectly hare-brained ideas I have ever encountered, I would pick the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you know, I personally oppose same-sex marriage for the havoc it will wreak upon the cultural independence upon the gay community, and while I believe the choice to marry rests with the individual, I don't think ratifying the FMA would quite be the Gotterdammerung (Sorry, have no idea how to type an umlaut. Guess that'll be a problem if I need to type a trema as well.) that many suggest it will be. Besides, a social consensus could probably bring about its repeal in twenty years. However, the Liberty Amendment would be an almost immediate disaster, bringing about the collapse of centuries of advance in the theory of federalism.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2005, 03:55:10 PM »

I suppose if I were forced to choose between two of the most perfectly hare-brained ideas I have ever encountered, I would pick the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you know, I personally oppose same-sex marriage for the havoc it will wreak upon the cultural independence upon the gay community, and while I believe the choice to marry rests with the individual, I don't think ratifying the FMA would quite be the Gotterdammerung (Sorry, have no idea how to type an umlaut. Guess that'll be a problem if I need to type a trema as well.) that many suggest it will be. Besides, a social consensus could probably bring about its repeal in twenty years. However, the Liberty Amendment would be an almost immediate disaster, bringing about the collapse of centuries of advance in the theory of federalism.

You really love the man.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2005, 05:03:13 PM »

Philip, JJ is right.  By your widely publicized logic, the forgoeing powers are those specified in Clause 2-17 of Article I Section 8, which rpovides for an Army, navy, and miltia.  There is no specific provision for an Air Force.

You have said repeatedly that only those specified powers in Clause 2-17 are empowered by Clause 1.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2005, 05:20:40 PM »

There was no such thing as an Air Force at the time the Constitution was adopted. I guess I could respond to your comments, if not for the fact that I already did.

And, where else, but this very topic:

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2005, 06:33:30 PM »

Which man, Bono?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2005, 06:36:57 PM »

I would prefer that stuck up gays stay out of my topic.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2005, 07:19:08 PM »

I suppose I should. By the way, put a hyphen between two words used as one modifier. Smiley
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2005, 07:45:58 PM »

There was no such thing as an Air Force at the time the Constitution was adopted. I guess I could respond to your comments, if not for the fact that I already did.

And, where else, but this very topic:

The power of national defense is definitely specified in the Constitution. You take the original meaning of the text and apply it to today's world.

This is a blatant self contradiction.  You said, only days ago, that only Clauses 2-17 taken through the eyes of the Founders could be construed as the intent of Clause 1.  You said nothing about applying it to todays world, in fact you've repeatedly said the opposite, that the Constitution must be seen through the eyes of the intent of its authors (You started a thread today asking that Judges swear to uhold the intent of the founders only).  Now you're telling us they should reinterpret it through modern lenses?

Which is it, Ace, 18th Century glasses or 21st Century?  You can't have both.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2005, 07:58:13 PM »

Applying the old meaning to new information is not the same as modifying the meaning. It is applying it. The Constitution dictates a standard for affecting the enumerated powers, and that is that it be both necessary and proper.

Only a damned fool would argue that the power to provide and maintain a navy does not immediately imply the power to provide and maintain an Air Force in the modern world.

The so-called "elastic clause" (though I don't like that phrase - elastic would imply convenience rather than necessity) is there for a reason. A document can become over time so that the words of the document can become detached from the powers delegated in that Constitution.

Numerous writings by the founders clearly indicate this is exactly what the necessary and proper clause means.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2005, 09:18:41 PM »

Applying the old meaning to new information is not the same as modifying the meaning. It is applying it. The Constitution dictates a standard for affecting the enumerated powers, and that is that it be both necessary and proper.

Only a damned fool would argue that the power to provide and maintain a navy does not immediately imply the power to provide and maintain an Air Force in the modern world.

The so-called "elastic clause" (though I don't like that phrase - elastic would imply convenience rather than necessity) is there for a reason. A document can become over time so that the words of the document can become detached from the powers delegated in that Constitution.

Numerous writings by the founders clearly indicate this is exactly what the necessary and proper clause means.

It seems you oly apply the elastic clause when it suits your ideology.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2005, 09:31:48 PM »

I apply the elastic clause when it's
  A. Necessary
  B. Proper

I assume proper would mean in keeping with the wishes of the founders in their delegation of powers to the Congress, though I don't have a source on that, and it could just mean that the Congress had to think it's proper, in which case it's pretty much a worthless requirement.

But the most important thing is necessary.

Give me an example of something where I do not apply the 'elastic clause' to the enumerated powers when it doesn't fit my ideology, but is in keeping with the clear sense of what the founders were trying to do, and necessary.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2005, 10:42:00 PM »

It is not necessary to have an Air Force, strictly speaking.  It is only necessary because we choose to be a world military power, but if we were willing to let the world do as it might, we could easily do without an Air Force at all.

I think its important to have an Air Force, but it is not necessary to having a fnctioning government.  Necessary and proper is a matter of judgement.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2005, 11:40:47 PM »

It is necessary for realizing the foregoing powers.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.246 seconds with 14 queries.