Federal Government = Irresponsible Teenagers

Federal Government = Irresponsible Teenagers...Good, the responsible teenagers were no fun. Without interpreting the Constitution, we would not have been able to do things like the Louisiana Purchase, by none other than TJ. 

You are correct in one sense and wrong in another..."Without interpreting the Constitution, we would not have been able to do things like the Louisiana Purchase"...

We don't need "interpretation" to do things like the Louisiana Purchase, Social Security, etc...what we need is a constitutional amendment.  In the late 19th century the income tax and laws calling for minimum wages were both struck down as unconstitutional.  Today we have both the income tax and minimum wage...We got an amendment for income tax (constitutional)...with minimum wage we got "interpretation" (unconstitutional).

Jefferson wanted to seek congressional approval and/or an amendment for the LA Purchase, but he gave in to party pressure...just proving that we can't put our trust in even the most ardent constitutionalist...we have to be diligent in holding our leaders feet to the constitutional fire.

I guess I fail to see your point.  This banal essay is about a typical 17-year-old with irresponsible PARENTS.

The parents weren't irresponsible, just too trusting.  Its what they did in response to their son's actions that will tell the tale.

As, will the voters' response in 2012 and 2014 to the irresponsible government we now have.

There's another point some of you, I think, are missing.  The parents vaguely identified food, beverages, etc and then elaborated further.  Our Constitution elaborates on the actual Constitutional powers of the federal government, but politicians, like the teenager, hang onto one little sentence as a justification for things that are not justified when the whole document is taken into consideration.

A better example of this type of interpretation would be if the teenager saw a Stratocaster guitar at the pawnshop for $50, but recognized it as a rare model.  He uses the ATM card to draw out $50 to buy the guitar, gets $500 on ebay.  Then, repays dad the $50, plus $225 as half of the profits. Informs dad he put $100 of his part of the profit in his college fund, bought $25 worth of cokes and snacks for his buds, and still had the other $100 for spending money.  I suspect dad would forgive the slight re-interpretation.

Exactly...I know this is not a perfect analogy, but thought it was a good illustration of Federal government dishonesty, when it comes to their enumerated power and the leaps in logic government makes in justifying expanding their power...by using a document that's sole purpose was limiting government power.

Reasonably intelligent adults know exactly the limits the "parents" in the above example were setting for their teenager.  Most likely the teenager knows exactly what his parents expect as well...but teenagers being teenagers, he trys to justify his behavior with a note that was intended to put restaints on his activity.

In the same way, a reasonably intelligent person who just takes a cursory look at the ideas that were presented and rejected at the constitutional convention, the way the Constitution was sold to the public, and the debates of the state conventions, will see that it is undeniable and irrefutable that the Constitution was meant to be a very strict and limited grant of power.

The man that wrote it chose to ignore your perceived interpretation of the document when he thought it was expedient to do so, thereby making the interpretation of the document necessary for any and all future instances of the implementation of new government activities.  Or do you think Jefferson was wrong to buy the Louisiana Territory? 

This makes no sense...what are you talking about? 

You think Jefferson "wrote" the Constitution?

As to the LA purchase, I addressed that in an earlier post...yes, he was wrong for not seeking congressional authority or an amendment.

If that is true (which it is not), then the Constitution means nothing and never did...

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which allows treaties between the US and other nations.  The Louisiana Purchase Treaty of 1803 provided for the purchase of the territory.  Understand what you are speaking of before standing on your hind legs and squeking.

During the Constitutional convention, Jefferson was the ambassador to France. He had no part in writing the constituon.  To be fair, I read a speech by a former president of France who made the same mistake. 

200 years of historical precedents affirm that I am right, and you are wrong. 

I’m sorry, but you just either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about…or just refuse to acknowledge it.

I don’t know if it’s arrogance or ignorance…maybe a combination of both…but you just saying I’m wrong, doesn’t make it so.  You make no attempt to address what I actually posted.  I’m wrong about what?  “200 years of historical precedents” doesn’t change the historical fact I posted above. 

Regarding “200 years of historical precedents”, I’ll paraphraseJefferson…he said that no matter how long the British had oppressed us, the length of time of oppression did not legitimized it.

You make no attempt at refuting the undeniable, irrefutable fact I posted above, because you can’t…hence the “undeniable, irrefutable”…

I posted:

“In the same way, a reasonably intelligent person who just takes a cursory look at the ideas that were presented and rejected at the constitutional convention, the way the Constitution was sold to the public, and the debates of the state conventions, will see that it is undeniable and irrefutable that the Constitution was meant to be a very strict and limited grant of power.”

So, exactly what am I wrong about here?  You can try to spin history all you want, but there are cold hard facts that do not change because your ideology refuses to accept them. 

It is indis****ble that the Constitution was sold in the ratifying conventions in a particular way.  The ratification of the Constitution was a very polarizing event…it was ratified by the slimmest of margins.  Those either opposing or being suspicious of ratification (Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc.), felt certain clauses were too vague and would allow the Federal government to grow too powerful…and they have ultimately been proven right.  Because the clauses and wording they were worried about are the very same ones we still debate today.

But those favoring ratification refuted broad interpretations of the general welfare clause, etc.  In letters, newspaper articles, and in the state ratifying conventions those in favor of ratification sought to allay the concerns of the “Antifederalist”  that the Constitution would give the federal government only the powers “expressly delegated” to it.  Read that again…the one’s trying to get the Constitution passed, told those suspicious of it, that the Constitution was very limited in scope…this is historical fact.

If you want to talk interpretation…I’ll paraphraseMadison...Madisonsaid any interpretation of the Constitution other than the ratifiers couldn’t possibly be correct.  It is the ratifiers whose opinions count, since what they believed themselves to be agreeing to is what binds us.

The fact that the Constitution is violated over and over, for many years cannot undo the fact that the document was ratified with this very precise understanding. 

It’s not about me being right or wrong…these are FACTS…you are wrong for denying and ignoring these indis****ble, irrefutable facts of the ratification of the Constitution.

The fact is that no federal government has acted in accordance with what you have presumed to be the correct interpretation of the document.