Please Click here! for my reference to this topic.

According to the 10th Amendment,

It is my opinion that the Contitution of the United States is not a living document and that it is the only law that protects us as citizens from our Federal Government gaining too much power over us and controling the lives of us.

In saying so, I feel that all Federal Government agencies not listed in the Constitution should be abolished and left up to the States to maintain. This would limit the Federal Government to the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial), the Department of Treasury, the US Postal Service and the Department of Defense. All other offices should be abolished as the states would be able to continue the works of those offices if the states individually decide those services are needed for the people of that state.


Topics for debate:

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

Should we leave all of the departments and offices of the Federal Government as is, or shall we work to limit these offices?

The US Constitution is definitely a living document. Not only are the words of FFs constantly being re-thought but there have been a few Amendments to the Constitution... some less effective than others (see also 18th Amendment) so pretend the thing is written in stone and that it is completely understood is a foolish idea. In fact, it's greatness is that it IS a living document.

I don't see how the second question has anything to do with this at all, but in general I'd like to see lots of Departments Abolished. (Education, Arts, Food & Drug, Energy...)

First let me start out by saying that you and I are obviously in agreement about abolishing the federal departments. Maybe for different reasons, but we agree nonetheless.

The second question is directly related to the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment basically says that the Federal Government has very limited powers. All the departments that have been formed over the life of our government that are not expressly permitted by the Constitution are therefore unconstitutional, in my opinion.

I disagree that our Constitution is a living document as is. Re-interpreting what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote this document is arrogant and presumptuous. What basis does anyone have to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution? I have the written word as the basis for my belief. If the document is outdated and needs to be ammended to include today's expansive and expensive government, then further ammending the Constitution is warrarnted. Simply forming departments for the purpose of the nation without following the Law of the Land is irresponsible. We have granted our government too much power in the last 100 years or so, and now we no longer have control as a people.

Well you're a little scatter-shot in my view here, but we do have a pretty good idea of why the FF put things in that they did. If only the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, but there's so much more.

People will always try to divine writers intent. It's not a terrible thing. Vance Bourjaily wrote a wonderful piece in Now Playing At Canterbury wherein F. Scott Fitzgerald is told he has no idea what F. Scott Fitzgerald was writing about. I think Rodney Dangerfield did something similar in Back to School with Kurt Vonnegut (who was good friends with Vance Bourjaily BTW). For people to speculate the meaning of words written over 200 years ago is actually a good thing. At least they're reading it.

I think what you really mean when you imply that the Constitution is not a living document is that you're a strict Constitutionalist. A sort of trendy AM Radio Host buzz word at the moment. Mark Levine leading that charge. There's much to be said about such a person that's complimentary but since we cannot actually know what the FFs were thinking a Strict Constitutionalist is only guessing writers intent. Which is the same thing as an Atheist who is bleating that the First Amendment means Americans must never be exposed to the concept of God. Jefferson was a Deist after all (no he wasn't but that's a different thread.)

I wonder why you would include the department of defense, since it didn't exist when the founders started the country. Indeed, the constitution doesn't even really allow for a standing military. Perhaps you could squeeze by on that one, but certainly the Air Force, for one, should be abolished, since they didn't have airplanes back in them days.

Of course, your pipe dream won't be realized... but, with a topic like this, and faced with what then must certainly be a choice of the 'lesser of two evils' when it comes election time, I trust you will be voting for the Democratic candidate. Since, as you surely know, Bush has presided over perhaps the largest creation of governmental department bureaucracy in our nation's history. Not to mention that he has signed more EOs circumventing the Constitution than any president before him.

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

It is certainly a living document. If it is dead, we should bury it and write a new one. Amazing that in over 200 years of smart, conservative and liberal jurisprudence in the Supreme Court, none of these departments you mention have been declared unconstitutional. So I suppose that, if I had to state a "why," it would be that I give some certain amount of credibility to the Constitutional scholars who have (in times for good, or ill) presided over the Supreme Court. But by all means, take your case to court. We have a conservative USSC at the moment. Perhaps they'll hear your argument.

Should we leave all of the departments and offices of the Federal Government as is, or shall we work to limit these offices?

We should work to make our government efficient and productive. We should cut defense at least in half, expand Education, the EPA, HUD, and a few others. We should invest a large amount of our capital in a massive public works project to update our nation's infrastructure.

I agree that it is good that people are actually reading the Constitution, but I wonder why so many aren't. Maybe I am interpreting the Constitution for the black and white definition of the words in the Constitution. I don't try to sit and think of what the context was. I simply take the wording for what it is worth, nothing more. I don't see it as guessing the writer's intent, I view it as reading the words and understanding them for what they are. I personally don't see much room for interpretation except for the actual definitions of the words.



So you don't think we should govern ourselves as the Constitution was written? I don't understand how spending more money on things like Education will solve the problem. In my opinion, spending more money on Education only makes the problem more expensive. My view is that none of those programs you want to expand are even in the constitution, so they should be abolished unless Constitutional Ammendments can be passed. At least then our Congress would be doing something productive for a change. I also don't understand, so please share with me your beliefs on why the defense budget should be cut in half. You have to understand that it is my belief that the Federal Government's main purpose is to protect the citizens of The United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic.

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

The Constitution is not a living document nor was it ever intended to be. It is a document that is supposed to enshrine forever the individual rights of American citizens and the limits of the American government. The Constitution was intended to be everlasting and to survive changes in society through an amendment process. The amendment process is a purposeful hindrance to major changes in order to protect the individual from rampant majoritarianism. The Constitution should be viewed as written in stone. "Living Constitution" proponents see the document more like a ball of clay. Something that can be changed and molded to suit their interests. The argument that the Constitution does not apply to present times or does not apply to present times ignores the significance of the amendment process. You change the Constitution by amendments, not by ignoring it and twisting meanings in order to suit purposes. If the amendment process is too difficult and is a hindrance to your initiatives, then it has achieved its purpose since changes were not supposed to be easy. This is not to stay that the Constitution should be read as strictly as to suggest that the Air Force is unconstitutional. What it means is that there is a clear ideology governing the Constitution - one of federalism and limited centralization of power. I have not come across a convincing argument that would suggest otherwise. As it stands right now, many people (modern liberals and conservatives alike) have found it easier to forget the Constitution altogether than to actually adhere to its provisions and principles (one example being the declaration clause).

Should we leave all of the departments and offices of the Federal Government as is, or shall we work to limit these offices?

There are certain government functions that are well within the realm of national power. Defense, external relations, interstate commerce, treasury, energy, environment, (although energy and environment is also a big state issue, depends on the context) etc... There are however many issues that should fall to the states with education being the main one. There are powers granted to the federal government and there are powers not granted to them but to other levels of government. To find out, all we have to do is open the Constitution and actually read it.

As I stated earlier, the only way I view the Constitution as a living document is through amendments. I think it is about time a Constitution Convention was conducted to get the government back in line. I don't see anything wrong with the belief that if we as a nation want to continue to conduct business as we have been.

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

If the Constitution is not "living", then how do we account for all these Supreme Court decisions giving interpretation to its words? Brown v. Board of Education? Loving v. Virginia? Dred Scott v. Sandford? Miranda v. Arizona? Gideon v. Wainwright? Texas v. Johnson? Korematsu v. United States? I assume that they must be wrong to have even taken these cases?

How do we account for Congress being able to provide for the General Welfare of the citizenry? Perhaps, you disagree with the programs Congress has instituted. But, is it unconstitutional? 200+ years of history contravenes.

Should we leave all of the departments and offices of the Federal Government as is, or shall we work to limit these offices?

I'm all for a limited Federal Government. I'm all for States' Rights. Sometimes, these ideas are in conflict. I'd like to start limiting Federal government by completely privatizing the military and offering stock ownership on US weapons assets.

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

I would say it is by definition a living document in that it has the potential to change with the times through amendments. It terms of re-interpreting existing text, I'm generally opposed.


Re: The 10th Amendment

This amendment is clear in intention, and I support it in principle.

That said, please take a ride on my logic train. Let me know if I'm getting derailed somewhere.

When some states chose to leave the union a while back, the federal government fought them to prevent this. There's no directive in the Constitution about when a state may leave the pact, so clearly that is up to the state, technically.

If we agree that the federal government made the right decision back then, we must also agree that the federal government is superior to the state in SOME circumstances, and then we're on a slippery slope straight to today.

As a matter of practical reality, I don't think that having a devided nation moving into the 20th century would have helped us evolve into an economic superpower. Had the southern state had time to build an industrial base, a WWI type meat grinder might easily have developed right on the Mason-Dixon line, and we could have sent our money to Europe instead of our artillery shells.

So, would you rather have a theoretical 2nd tier nation (or two) with dominant state governments, or a world leading nation with a strong central government? I don't think we could have both.

Certainly, "What if?" history is a fools game, but you see what I'm saying.

Watch your feet getting of the train.

In 1700s and 1800s, they didn't define welfare the same as we do today. Welfare refers to the welfare of the country, or in simpler terms, how prosperous. Here is what your reference says about welfare:Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.



Interesting idea, I would be hesitant to invest since many of the military's weapons assets get destroyed, but interesting nonetheless.


I will disagree with you on this point. Section 10 of Article 1 clearly states that a state can not enter into a confederation.
Click here!



Since the section that I referenced above prohibits the states from breaking away, the Civil War would have still been fought, and obviously been won by the Union, but I do see you point. I still think that if we as the people of the Untied States held most of the power and not have relinquished the power to the Federal Government, we would be a much more prosperous nation today than we are.

Hard for me to say, given the fact that it is a fairly toothless and easily ignored document [on top of being a forced social 'contract'], it is difficult to say whether or not it is 'alive' or not. I would say yes, only because the very same words written on it have been interpreted in so many vastly different ways over the past 200+ years; how can segregation be Constitutional on one day and then, in a relatively short period of time, be considered unconstitutional? Someone could say that that does not indicate the Constitution's 'life', it just shows that our 'understanding' of it changes over time. I would ask, if a document is written in such a way that those reading are constantly re-interpreting its content, does that not make the document itself ever evolving? That is to say, if I read the same thing over and over again and I keep seeing something different, would that not make that document ever-changing?

In theory, we should eliminate all of the offices, but in practice, yes, limiting and eliminating them one by one is a nice start...and a hell of an accomplishment these days.

CP

But could you have a standing army? The founding father's were heavily against the establishment of a standing army... certainly against a standing army that could overwhelm its citizens.

The Constitution gave the authority to raise and support armies to Congress. It also gave Congress the authority to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces (of which the President is Commander in Chief). It also gives Congress the authority to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union.

So the government is currently violating the Constitution on a variety of fronts. Do you wish to toss that all aside? Should the President be allowed to federalize the National Guard (the militia), to make rules for the regulation and government of the military? Should we even have a standing army, or should we require Congress to raise armies in times of war?

1. When did we travel back in time to the 1700/1800s? Here I thought it was the 21st century.
2. How do you know what the "Founding Fathers" meant? From the Federalist/Anti-federalist papers? Could it be that they left the term purposefully general?
3. What does it matter what the "Founding Fathers" thought?


No, you're choosing a meaning that fits with your political ideology. If you disagree with how the term has been interpreted over the years, the you can take it court.


Military assets would only get deployed by a majority stock holder vote. This would also be the case for deployment of strategic nuclear assets.

Thank you for the link. It does seem fairly straightforward and I'll concede the point, though I see wiggle room for a single state to exit the union, then make it's treaties after the fact. It seems more geared toward preventing the state from competing with each other in international trade and from initiating independent diplomatic missions.

Still, it does seem to make the actual Confederacy a clear violation. And I think that ended with the right outcome (even if it took much longer than it should have).

I guess I was clumsily trying to point of what some other have said, that clearly the central governmnet and states rights are in conflict. I do think that it has swung a bit much towards the feds right now (with unfunded mandates and interference in areas not explicitly granted them), but there are pitfalls either way. An impoverished state could easily enter a downward spiral with no good way out but for federal intervention. I believe a sensible balance must be struck, and that we aren't too far from the optimal levels right now.

It appears that congress, many years ago, raised and is now supporting, an army. Not sure how that is unconstitutional.
I have not found where the Constitution gives the President powers to federalize the National Guard. Congress is given the power, but not the President. It does give the President power as Commander in Chief of the National Guard when federalized. Again, with making rules of the military is a Congressional Power, not the President's. Yes we should have a standing Army to defend the country.

Is the Constitution of the United States a living document? Why or why not?

Seems to me it's on the ropes from the Partriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security. But it's still alive and kicking.

A living document changes over time. The Constitution allows for its own amendment process, so it's alive. This also reflects a dynamic and changing nation, although now it's all being outsourced. That'll likely be our downfall unless we get busy and invent stuff, like oh say, alternative energy technologies that we can sell to the world and cure our devaluing dollar

Ah well, an old hippy dream there. Too much resistance to change it seems. Some people still want to party like it's 1787.

Should we leave all of the departments and offices of the Federal Government as is, or shall we work to limit these offices?

They all need an overhaul after years of neglect and cronyism. DoD and DoE really need a thorough shaking out. Maybe in the next administration the VP will be charged with doing this instead of running the country into the ground. Clinton had Gore out trying to make things more efficient by using business-styled best practices. Looks like everyone's just been collecting paychecks since then, and of course being yes-people.

BTW, those who dislike the Dept. of Education ought to lobby their school districts to refuse federal funds. Voila, no more fed intervention! Then that'll leave more funds for districts that are okay with the feds having a say. You can do the same thing regarding highway funds from the Dept. of Transportation, but I don't know why anyone would want to because that'd just mean higher state taxes.

I'm afraid we are stuck with the federal government, like it or not. I'm pretty okay with the arrangement. Makes for a tighter nation than what we started out with. After all, we did have a Civil War over the issue. Don't think I want to go back to pre-Civil War days. Then we have this situation of being a world power, which was never originally envisioned.

Yep, what a difference a couple of centuries made.

Well, what does it matter what they wrote? Like it or not, what they wrote is the law that we claim to live under. Maybe you don't think we should be held to that, in which case that's a whole separate discussion. But if you think we should be held to the Constitution, then it only makes sense that we be held to the meaning contained in its words. That would be the meaning those words had when they were written. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in adhering to it at all - just write a new Constitution and be done with it.

I read a very interesting book (can't remember the title at the moment) about the words of the Constitution. Using contemporary documents, the author concluded that the use of the word "keep" in conjunction with "arms" was fairly clear in the time of the founders. It meant 'keeping' arms in a public storage, as a militia would. Would you agree with that, since it was the general usage of the time, or do you have another "interpretation?" And I look forward to your post advocating the dismantling of the standing military.

My counter to this theory is that if that is indeed what it meant, than why was it not carried out in that way? I mean the 2nd Amendment was widely considered an individual right throughout the nineteenth century with little argument otherwise. It is only fairly recently that the 2nd Amendment is getting this new interpretation of a collective right. And i would have to say that it is directly correlated with the strength of the firearms. If guns still took a minute to fire one shot there wouldn't be much of a problem, as there wasn't for so long. But the lethality has changed and the interpretation along with it.

Is this a rhetorical question? It matters what they wrote because we are living under a Constitution using their words. The question I asked is: what does it matter what they thought?


Yes, what they wrote is the law we live under. I don't understand what the "like it or not" reference means.


Why? Please answer this "why" without assuming the answer to be axiomatically true.


Why?


How did you get from A --> B?

Re standing armies, history has shown that Jefferson was wrong and that Adam Smith was right. So the formal amendment to add the same shouldn't be a problem, yes?

Re federal agencies, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having any number of such agencies. The difficulty or problem comes with the question of whether Congress has the power to delegate its legislative power to such agencies via the grant of "rule-making authority" to the agency. I otherwise doubt that those complaining of Congress delegating its war power to the President have any problem with Congress delegating its general legislative power to HUD, when the reality is that if the one is wrong, then so is other.

All that I will otherwise say re the US Constitution as a "living document" is, first:

"'That "living Constitution' approach, Scalia observed, has led to U.S. Senate hearings in which candidates for federal judge or Supreme Court justice are grilled about which rights they believe are in the Constitution. Eventually, voters will choose and demand judges based not on their ability to interpret the Constitution but on the political positions they hold, he warned.

'The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the hands of the very entity against which the Bill of Rights was meant to protect you against, that being the majority,' Scalia said."

See: http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/...ia14031301a.asp

Next, ConservPat, you missed the mother of all examples:

Headline: The US Supreme Court declares that capital punishment is unconstitutional.
US Constitution provides: No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law.

So, contrary to a majority of nine, there must be some due process through which we can deprive a person of her or his life...or so says the US Constitution.

Third, and lastly, whenever I hear the "living document" Newspeak, I am instantly reminded of a conversation that Alice had with a certain someone:

"'You’re holding it [memorandum book] upside down!' Alice interrupted. 'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right—though I haven’t time to look it over thoroughly just now—and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you get un-birthday presents---' 'Certainly,' said Alice. 'And only one for birthday presents, you know, There’s glory for you.' 'I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don’t---till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!' 'But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'"

To be master - that's all... For a statement of the objection to the absolute power of it, see:

http://comparativelawblog.blogspot.com/200...ty-and-law.html

What war powers are you referring to that congress has delegated to the President? I am not asking with hostility, simply because I am not sure what you are referring to.

Kivrot, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, some clarification would be helpful.

CP

We had a whole discussion of the Second Amendment here. Suffice it to say, the founders would have been astonished to think that the Constitution as amended would have given the federal government any degree of power to restrict private ownership of firearms. But I'd be willing to go along with your "keep" interpretation if we could "keep" the interpretation of the Commerce Clause that existed before FDR got a hold of it and strongarmed the Court into suiting it to his political views. Because under that earlier correct interpretation, the 2nd Amendment would hardly have been necessary anyway, since nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government power to enact gun control laws in the first place.


Based on what? The Constitution explicitly provides for one, under due limitations.



Well, that's a bit tough to do when dealing with axiomatic concepts, but I'll try to break it down a little further for you. Unless you can come up with a different reason, the reason we use words at all is to convey meaning. The words themselves are of no real importance, becuase they're just containers. What's of importance is the meaning contained in those words. Are you with me so far, or is there something I'm saying that you don't accept?

Yes, words convey meanings. However, why do the meanings you presume to be conveyed by the words of the "Founding Fathers" matter?

ConservPat:

I was simply adding the ultimate example re change in meaning, or if preferred, interpretation, since in holding that capital punishment was unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court "disappeared" certain language in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Returning again to Alice's encounter, a word indeed means what a majority or plurality of nine say that it does, and sometimes, as evidenced by the decision I am alluding to, the US Supreme Court has said that the word has no meaning whatsoever. I'd rather we skip the pretense and simply have the despotism.



scutbatim:

Here's the problem:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(B*) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B*) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

As you can see, the resolution explicity states [first paragraph under item (B*)] that "in connection with the exercise of the authority granted..." What authority did Congress grant? As CIC, the President already has the authority to conduct any declared war in the manner that he or she sees fit, and so that authority need not have been granted to him by Congress. Now see item (B*)(1). As is obvious, Congress did not resolve that peaceful means alone were insufficient and so the Congress delegated to the President the authority to determine the answer to that question. And so the Congress gave the power to the President to declare war if he, and not the Congress, saw fit. Item (B*) in totality makes the point plain, since the President, when he reports back, won't be in Congress to explain why he choose 6:30 a.m. as the time of initial attack, and why he committed this division and that division, but not this other division, instead, the President will be there to answer why he believed that initiation of combatant activities in a foreign land was necessary in the first instance, and never mind the timing of such operation[s], and never mind also the manner of the operation[s]. In sum, if Dubya gets to answer the question of if/whether we fire a shot in anger, then he has effectively been given the power to declare war.

I'm all for the war in Iraq, but what this Congress and past Congresses have been doing is dangerous. And I'm not taking the cynical approach and viewing the matter through the lens of imagined warmongering and war profiteering, or even "blood for oil", but instead through the lens of, it's easier for one human to make an honest mistake than it is for hundreds of humans to all make the same mistake at the same time, and so in this sense, the delegation from the group to the one is indeed dangerous. As you presumably otherwise understand, if Congress had answered the "if" and "whether", then no one could call this "Dubya's War". One of these days, we'll hopefully get a President who will see the point and send the resolution back, with note attached reading, Sorry boys and girls, but it won't be just me who has to own up to this, so you put your name on the war and then I'll go fight it.

The other way of looking at matter is, well, what does the President usually say here, and let's use both Slick Willie and Dubya? Both said, I am CIC. But that's a military title [the civilian title is CEO], and here I thought that the military power is subordinate to the civil power. Resolutions of the type at issue here seem to forget that point. And so we have "Dubya's War" because some allowed the "CIC" to himself declare it. None of this otherwise makes Dubya a despot, since he didn't seize the power [through our legislative representatives we gave it away]. This last point is why I would hold that none of this unconstitutional, I mean, our giving away the power doesn't make the recipient a despot, and despotism was the danger to be avoided. Simply recall the complaint, the King has stationed his troops among us without our consent. Consent? And so we consented to have the CIC make the determination in our stead and so our complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted [unless one wishes to be treated like the child and so have others make and reverse one's decisions for him]. And that's my short form version of my opinion on the issue.

First, I am lead to believe that this is from the authorization to invade Iraq?



If this is in the authorization to use force in Iraq passed by Congress, I read this as instructions that he must report to the heads of the two houses of Congress what actions are being taken. I would assume that this is because only Congress has the authority to fund military efforts. This is where the checks and balances come into play. Without the President having to report to Congress, he could do anything he wanted with the troops. With this provision in the authorization, Congress has a say in what goes on. Not necessarily a say in what the President can do, but how long Congress will allow the President to continue what he has been doing. The fact that Congress still spends money on the War on Terror puts their name next to the presidents on this.



I read this differently. It says that it has become apparent that diplomacy will not work alone, and in authorizing the president to use military force to protect the United States and to enforce UN security resolutions in regards to Iraq. The president and his generals run the war as they see fit, until money is cut off. Congress authorizes the use of force, after that, decisions are made only by military leaders, advisors and ultimately the president. You can only declare war once. Each mission that is sent down to the ground for the troops to carry out don't have to be authorized by Congress. I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but the quote you provided doesn't give the President authorization to declare war on anyone.



Again, it isn't Congress's authority to determine when missions will begin and which divisions are to be used. As Commander in Chief, these decisions are determined by the generals and ultimately by the President.



According to Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which is labled as the president is granted Civilian Power Over Military as the Commander in Chief, so the title is not a military title, but a civilian title.
Link

Just a couple of questions.

What if someone doesn't see the invasion of Iraq as an integral part of the "War on Terror"? I know that Bush wants to connect the two in the public mind, but apart from successful demagoguery the failure of his policy is obvious. With out the assumption of a connection to the "War on Terror," your argument falls faster than a plane with stalled engines.

Why have we gotten away from the constitutional provision of congress declaring war, rather than simply giving the president a blank check to spend as he pleases. In Bush's case, this has been and is an utter disaster.?

Whether or not you think there is a connection or not doesn't change history, or the fact that we are there now. Congress has every power to end funding for the Iraq War. The Iraq invasion wasn't authorized when we declared a War on Terror. It was authorized more than a year later.
Link to Authorization to use military force in Iraq.
The reasons may have been listed as connection, but that doesn't mean the funding has to be grouped with the fighting in Afgahnistan, does it?


I guess I don't follow. Are we talking about the war in Iraq, or the War on Terror. Iraq is actually a seperate invasion and a seperate resolution than the Afgahnistan invasion. Why doesn't Congress only authorize funding for military efforts in Afgahnistan and not Iraq? In both of these invasions, congress declared war, or authorized military force. Don't they have the power to limit funding for either arena of operation individually? Wouldn't that take Bush's "blank check" away from him?

I agree, but check the threads that have been started on Iraq. Almost universally, they are started in "The War on Terrorism" section. Further, Bush seemingly bypasses few opportunities to tie the two together in speeches.

That is why I acccused Bush of demagoguery. The shoe definitely fits.

Sure, but the thing is that back when the war began, even congress saw it as a reasonable action. It was only in subsequent years that people began to disagree.

What if next week, we learn (somehow) that all the WMD's Saddam had were trucked into Iran (or wherever)? Would that change anything?

I think the problem with the left's argument about the war in relation to GW is that it negates any congressional accountability? Most of us believe that the war needs different parameters and to be handled differently, but how we got there is a matter of fact. Congress voted for it sir.

When it comes to the Constitution, and the document being altered and what the Founding Fathers thought, I think that leder's response to QH said it best. (paraphrased) When QH asked about an armed militia and keeping arms in a central location, Leder noted that it wasn't done that way even back then. So what did the Founding Fathers mean? I suppose not to keep firearms downtown in an armory, or else that would've been the point of action then.

I think what happens in contemporary politics, people attempt to turn the works of our founding fathers and our constitution into something it isn't. Both sides do it I'd suppose, but the only one I can think of in this case is the 2nd amendment. Anti-gun activists somehow believe that illegal firearms would stop crime and violence, not understanding that a majority of criminal gun violence happens with illegal firearms anyway. Could our FF known this? Of course not. But they knew that if the American population was armed, chances are that foreign armies wouldn't invade... which is very much the case today.

This is ridiculosness cubed.

It's like asking if Big Foot or the Great Pumpkin is going to appear next week.



I was referring to:



How you ever read the 2nd amendment into this is beyond me.

What does that have to do with constitutional war powers? Iraq is considered a front in the War on Terror because we're fighting al-Qa'ida over there, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has made blindingly clear. Now, back to the subject of this thread:


Where are you getting "presume" from? We have evidence for the meaning conveyed by the words they used. Is your objection that we can't be 100% sure of that meaning, or that it wouldn't matter even if we could?

Right! There wasn't al Qaeda presence in Iraq until we invaded. Further, does it bother you that congress has not formally declared war in Iraq?




We really needed your ruling on the subject at hand.

BTW: I'm, not saying it's wrong, but why do you use extra keystrokes spelling "al-Qa'ida," when even the 9/11 Commission Report spells it "al Qaeda"?

This is a common argument, and not one that I will say doesn't have merit. Needless to say, that still leaves the question why congress authorizes funding for both conflicts when they could simply only fund one combat arena.

Just a thought that came to mind while writing this; would it be more responsible of Congress to fund the two combat zones seperately, or to clump them together? These questions I raise are just questions that I think of randomly, maybe I should start new threads?

I think funding them separately gives congress more wiggle room in cutting funding for Iraq.

Do you mean the Anti-Federalist Papers or the Federalist Papers? Do you mean the Federalist disagreements over the very existence of the Bill of Rights. What specifically do you "know" as evidence of the "Founding Fathers" true meaning behind the words which were written?


I'm asking you to tell me why it matters what the "Founding Fathers" meant. We read the words now with our own societal notions of the meaning of those words.

By the way in which those words were used by everyone at the time. For example, in the Second Amendment discussion I linked to in my earlier reply, I went into detail as to how the word "regulated" was understood in the context of the phrase "well regulated militia".

But if you want to argue that this isn't a 100% reliable method, it's certainly far more reliable than looking at modern usage. It's really hard to find a less reliable method than that (without getting totally absurd), if you're looking for evidence of what their words mean.


I actually didn't say that it does. What I said matters is the meaning their words had at the time they wrote them. For example, I could say right now: "The sky is blue," and later claim that I meant to say that it was black. It wouldn't really matter what I meant to say, because the meaning conveyed by the actual words I said is the received meaning that our society gives to them, regardless of what I privately meant. And even if, 200 years from now, the word "sky" or "blue" takes on a different meaning from what they have now, the meaning of what I said is the meaning currently contained by those words.

So, if we want to get into exact historical context, we should only be allowed to own muzzle-loaded flintlocks? Why do historical words only get to mean what you want them to mean?


I don't understand this. Can you elaborate?


If the statement -- "the sky is blue" -- had been successively refined or broadened through interpretations of Constitutional language (that is, the three branches of government, particularly the judicial branch), then the meaning of that statement as it means today through that lens of interpretation is what matters. You want to try to ignore the intellectual, social, political and historical underpinnings of these words built up through time and tradition. Our nation is not the same nation it was 200 years ago and the meanings of our Constitution language has changed to reflect that.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention the right to keep and bear muzzle-loaded flintlocks. It mentions the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing in the 18th-century definition of the word "arms" would exclude modern weaponry, any more than anything in the modern definition of the word would exclude hand phasers.


If you want to know what meaning their words had at the time, you'd have to look at how they were used at the time. Agree?


And here's where I'll ask the same question you asked me: Why? Please answer this "why" without assuming the answer to be axiomatically true.

I think I'm justified in asking this, because I'd say your position is considerably more counterintuitive than mine. It's really kind of bizarre to say that the meaning of the words of a particular law can change over time. That's the same as saying that the law itself changes over time, is it not? Yet the Constitution itself prescribes the method by which it is to be changed in response to societal changes, and it's a formal, deliberate process - as it should be.

Great. So, if the Constitution says "arms", then it's fine to give it a modern meaning (and not the meaning the "Founding Fathers" knew it to be at time of writing). Otherwise, if it doesn't say "arms", then we must use the meaning the "Founding Fathers" had.

Why not just come right out and say it. As it suits your political agenda, your Constitutional language takes on either the modern meaning (such as "arms") or the "Founding Fathers'" meaning (such as "General Welfare").

You want it both ways. You can't have it both ways; you're only allowed to pick one. So, which is it: modern or "originalist"?

Maybe it didn't come through clearly enough the first time I said it, but the modern meaning and the 18th Century meaning of the word are both the same. The word means the same thing in both eras. You're confusing examples with definitions. Yes, there are additional examples of arms today that didn't exist back then. Those additional examples, however, did not change the definition of the word. That remains the same today as it was in 1789. Arms, both today and back then, are implements used to inflict harm against others, especially in a military context. That definition does not exclude any particular type.

Hmmm...this is actually a difficult question to answer. I do not think that the Constitution is a "living document" per se, but I would also that strict interpretations of the Constitution are incredibly limited and do not actually serve any purpose in modern American discourse.

A discussion about Constitutional interpretation cannot happen without an rather lengthy discussion about theories of self-governance and the origins of rights. Ill try and keep it brief. My problem with proponents of strict constructionalists and a literal interpretation of the Constitution is the presupposition that our rights are granted by the government. According to this theory, the only rights we have as humans comes from what the government decides to grant us, and we should be happy to have them. I can see where this idea makes sense to some (in Hobbesian sort of way), but I strongly disagree with it. Thomas Jefferson states that we are endowed with inalienable rights. If this is the case, then one could assume that our rights do not come from the government, but that they are inherent in our being (there are several different theories that espouse this idea, the most popular being Natural Law, but there are others). Hence, it is not governments purpose to "give" us rights; it is governments purpose to protect and enhance our rights. If a government fails at doing this, then the people have the right to seek out a different form of government.

Therefore, the Constitution is merely a guide to how the government should act to protect and enhance our rights. The Founding Fathers were divided on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights. When I first discovered that a few years ago, I was shocked and I considered the Federalists somewhat anti-liberty. However, upon closer inspection, I realized the opposition to the Bill of Rights is not because the Federalists feared too much freedom of the masses; rather, they did not want to Constitution to become what it is today. Today, many people consider the Bill of Rights (and its Amendments) the end-all-be-all of our rights: We only have the rights enumerated in our Constitution, and those rights that are enumerated are the only rights that are important.

However, the ninth amendment clearly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". Unfortunately, the ninth amendment is too often ignored, and people only turn to more specific amendments when claiming rights. Hence, the idea of a right to privacy (or other rights) are always challenged as "Where does it say that in the Constitution?"

...Well, it doesn't say that in the Constitution, but does that mean the right doesn't exist?

Hadley Arkes wrote an excellent book entitled Beyond the Constitution, and he does a much better job of detailing the problems that have arisen from the focus on the Bill of Rights. (And no, I am not advocating abolishing the Bill of Rights or anything of the sort...However, it remains an issue when we regard the Constitution/Federal government as the sole source of our rights...Which means, effectively, we cannot think for ourselves or hold the moral capacity to discern the right way to live.) On pg. 59



Essentially, what Arkes (and others) advocate is a moral reading of the Constitution. I don't really feel like getting into the nuances of moral interpretation of the Constitution. Ill add more later.