Jim;291101 wrote:
Link has been banned for continuing. I'm not kidding.

Bump for just now seeing this.

Finally. That kid was a douche and i think its safe to say that not a single person on this board liked him.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:
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???

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.

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....

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).

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.

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.

TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

I guess I took it as stating that his opinion was that the Warren Court didn't break any rules of the constitution in how it acted and that the redistribution that he spoke of (in THIS interview) was along the lines of "All state/federally funded projects (education for example) should be funded equally, regardless of the local tax base so that no school district should be underfunded just because the local residents are poor". He then went on to state how he feels that this can be done better outside of the courts but rather by local movements and community organization.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

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.

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? Would public schools be ok then?

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?

It's clear that Obama understands what the constitution actually says, and why the courts decided what they did. And it is clear that that wasn't good enough for him or people who share his ideological goals.

As for the no guarantee of public education, I agree, the constitution didn't spell that out but I still fail to see how getting a basic education in a public setting is a bad thing for the general public.

The ends justify the means? Who cares what laws we break, it's for a good cause?
You're getting side tracked and not facing the issue directly.

You know I hate government-run education but I'm not making the argument [here] that it shouldn't exist, or that only kids who were good at choosing their parents ought to be able to afford to go to school. What I am saying is that "school" is not an enumerated power of the federal government, and thus the feds shouldn't have any hand in it AT ALL. And there is no real legal basis for them having done what they've done thus far.

So the whole wish of wanting to wish-away this issue as "out of context" is moot: the guy is smart enough and well-read enough to know what the constitution says. And he wishes it didn't, but not too much because clearly he [and other lawmakers] don't think they have to follow it. Yes, there will occasionally be setbacks where some court shows some spine and puts the beat down on dipshit government. But Obama beleives, primarily, that the definition of what makes America unique in the history of humanity, namely our enumerated-powers, individual-rights preserving form of government, is an archaic document to wipe one's ass with, and an occasional hinderance between Obama and the greatness he deserves.

We may disagree about the context of it....and you might be right even, so show me more of the same to support it. I know I asked Gary for a single clip, and I apologize and hate to say I will need to see another one.

As for the no guarantee of public education, I agree, the constitution didn't spell that out but I still fail to see how getting a basic education in a public setting is a bad thing for the general public. I would even go so far as to say that it is an overall very good thing as it does give an opportunity to everyone regardless of social class....and those who have parents who can/will pay for private schooling will still have the opportunity to get the schooling they desire for their children.

You call it a social program, I call it an opportunity. We are probably both right.

My claim was and continues to be that Obama wishes the constitution didn't get in the way of his goals. He laments that you cannot use a negative liberties (one that protects people from the government) document to get the sort of socio-political outcome he wanted, and he further laments that the civil rights folks before him tried using the courts and failed. Listen to the fucking contempt in his speech. Unlike the bozos before him, who tried to get the supreme court to decide something, he figures a more effective strategy is to do it in the legislature. The supreme court says NO, Obama says people ought to go about doing it some other way so it's not up to them.

"Social Justice" has nothing to do with the constitution. There is no guarantee to a "right" of education or any such horseshit. Those are all inventions of the left, they tried to get them via the courts, the court said no, and Obama says they'll try something else.

I have my disagreements with the courts, but my disagreements go in the other direction - namely, that the court has been entirely too lenient in letting bullshit happen and in stripping away the protections of the constitution. So while I'm no unambiguous supporter of the court, on occasions where the court says "the constitution doesn't let you pull that shit" and Obama says "so?", I'm inclined to think Obama is an asshole.

I've been trying to make the case for at least a year: Obama doesn't beleive in any compatible notion of America that someone like me would recognize. In his world, the power of government isn't limited, the function of government isn't to protect individuals, and the role of government isn't to stay the fuck out of the way. That's not how he rolls. Instead, the government can do whatever needs to be done for social justice, there is a taxonomy of group identities and some groups are more deserving than others, and the government should meddle in every damn aspect of the human condition.

That 50% or more of the populace seem to agree with him reflects poorly on him, them, and the public education he claims to be so enamored with [but won't subject his own children to].

The man may be a nice human, but he is utterly and completely irredeemable as an American. And don't change the subject to whine about the last guy, or any other former president -- we're talking about *this *guy. And ideologically, he's a disaster, and the only possible silver lining is that he might fail so hard in practice that some of that 50% of hopey-change dopes that voted for him will step back and think about not taking a bigger bite out of the shit sandwhich that they just got served (after all, it's what they ordered).

topical reading:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/hasnas1.html
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htm

I have a modest but helpful library of pro-capitalism, pro-libertarian books that I'd be happy to lend to anyone that's interested. Being a capitalist, I beleive in value for value, so the upside for me from lending you a book is that your future votes, conversations, and way of approaching things might not actively work against the interests of me and ultimately of any version of America that deserves to retain the name it inherits.

And as to why I keep running my mouth about this crap, to paraphrase Milton Friedman: "don't be impressed when you convince someone in an evening. The next person they talk to will lead them entirely astray on some other evening. The minds you need to fight for and win are those who need to think it over for a while."

So I hope my efforts aren't wasted, and that after more than a year of skipping over my long ass posts, some of you are thinking things over. Hopefully if you borrow a book from me you'll really get it and be able to overcome any disservice I may have done by trying to make an argument first presented by guys much more clever and articulate than I.

In other words: I'd love it if you went straight to the source. The best starting point I know is "Capitalism and Freedom", by Milton Friedman. Incidentally, he's most commonly associated with the University of Chicago. Proof that solid intellectual talent *can *come from that city

My 40th anniversary paperback edition is sitting behind me on the bookshelf. I'll lend it to anyone who asks and who can meet me to pick it up.

Grr;291958 wrote:
since im going to bed now and i saw nick in here, ill just post this for your enjoyment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM

Ted Nugent is fucking AWESOME.

Grr;291957 wrote:
easy as hell to find, welcome to the right side chuck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4

I actually came across that in my search, but then heard the rest of the interview and saw the clarification of it. It was discussed pretty well here, with this being the answer that I used to dismiss what was said as being out of context: http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/665688-post5.html

I don't disagree that the UAW is out of control, but I don't blame them for people not buying GM vehicles like they used to. GM is priced lower than Toyota on many areas, but Toyota still outsold them.

Obama has CLEARLY stated that he sees it as a charter of NEGATIVE rights, and thus nothing more than a burden to the creation of big, socialistic government. If that isnt the definition then i dont know what is

When/where has that been stated? I know he is fairly anti-gun...especially on a state level, on a federal level I haven't seen that. I guess I'm just asking for a source....maybe this will be the thing that tips me away from him entirely (I'll admit I'm teetering...) but in doing the google search that CMK/Parker seem to think that I am the grand master of I really couldn't find anything that points to it. Maybe I need to search youtube, but I'm hoping you can help me out and post a link?