Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
incidentally, I am soon going to make a thread about how freedom is not inherently good
I think it will be entertaining
Freedom without social responsibility and good citizenship? Or just plain ol' freedom?
Freedom as an end in itself, rather than an instrument of utility.
I am just really annoyed by how the core ethical theme in almost every work of popular fiction is individual liberty.
I got some communist literature laying around from my great depression era literature class, interesting stuff. Interesting to see how they tried to make things like the collective novel.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Ok you made your case pretty clearly Spool, nice.
It does not change what I originally said. If there are problems changing the document - it's age will be a problem.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
It's like the OS for the rest of the law.
Your is just hella wierd.
I don't think you are correct here, because I'm pretty sure yours is similar to ours.
The "base law" declares how government is formed, that people are free, have freedom of expression etc. Isn't that pretty much exactly like The Constitution - although less specific?
The government is not "atop" the constitution - that would mean they can change it willy nilly. That is simply not the case. The government is formed in accordance with the constitution.
it's atop in the sense that it is built upon the base. It's easier to change what's on top than the base.
Or, not actually the government because the cabinet doesn't actually make any laws.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
The preamble is not considered legally binding.
It provides constitutional scholars and justices clues regarding the motivations of the founding fathers, but it is not itself law.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I still do not see the distinction of something being atop or under the constitution.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
The preamble is not considered legally binding.
It provides constitutional scholars and justices clues regarding the motivations of the founding fathers, but it is not itself law.
Which is exactly what I said, since constitutional law is basically just searching out for what the founders meant. It's silly to remove it completely from the equation.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
The government will be arguing that today, as I understand it. Alito and possibly other Justices were peeved the government was arguing it wasn't a tax (so they can get a decision now since you can't rule on a tax until its levied) yesterday but will be arguing that it counts under this clause today.
I don't really understand this maneuver, BTW. It seems like this is just going to make it more difficult on them.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Emn, I'm not saying that freedom isn't an excellent instrument for ethical utility, I'm saying that that is all it is. It is not always a necessary or sufficient instrument for ethical good, as opposed to, maybe, compassion.
There is an obsession with freedom in our western zeitgeist, a sort of monotonous oversimplification that not only assumes freedom is an end, not a means, it does not engage the complications of freedom. A genetically engineered caste of labourers in BNW is not unfree in the typical sense, though their individual will is itself subordinate
The King can give anyone he likes any kind of Order or other Reward for excellent Service, but no Rank or Title other than that given by their office. And absolutely no heritable anything.
I still do not see the distinction of something being atop or under the constitution.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
If you're using a building analogue, then both form the base.
If you're imagining everything hanging, then both are at the top.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
If we had treated Grunnloven as holy, jesuits and jews would still be banned from the realm.
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
It is so fucking weird to live for a few days with signifigantly impaired brain function then get better.
It's like that Poul Anderson book "Brain Wave" (excellent read btw).
You too? Seems like everyone was having problems. What gives?
Bashed my head and got a concussion last Tuesday. Everything has just been so slow and hurty since (getting better but slowly). And my memory has been scary bad.
Chu: thai sounds awesome but i am in the cafeteria so not an option.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I still do not see the distinction of something being atop or under the constitution.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
If you're using a building analogue, then both form the base.
If you're imagining everything hanging, then both are at the top.
Now you are saying that they're functionally similar, right? Like I said from the start.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
There aren't any rights espoused in the preamble! WTF man? And I meant a binding part of the Constitution.
We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There are no rights in the Preamble. I think you are confused here, dude.
If we had treated Grunnloven as holy, jesuits and jews would still be banned from the realm.
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
your "conservative" when it comes to government power, is the polar opposite to most other places.
I mean hell, our conservative party was formed in opposition to democracy.
I still do not see the distinction of something being atop or under the constitution.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
If you're using a building analogue, then both form the base.
If you're imagining everything hanging, then both are at the top.
Now you are saying that they're functionally similar, right? Like I said from the start.
I never disagreed with you. Talk to spool 'bout that.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
The government will be arguing that today, as I understand it. Alito and possibly other Justices were peeved the government was arguing it wasn't a tax (so they can get a decision now since you can't rule on a tax until its levied) yesterday but will be arguing that it counts under this clause today.
I don't really understand this maneuver, BTW. It seems like this is just going to make it more difficult on them.
They have a difficult argument to make, yeah. Also, from the reviews I've read the Solicitor General didn't advance a General Welfare clause argument today. It might be in the briefs? The justices didn't ask about it either, from what I've read. I'll listen to the arguments later tonight.
If the king is dead and there are no suitable heirs, a new king or queen shall be chosen by the Storting.
EDIT: Or "Storthing" as it actually says here. Man why did we ever stop writing like this. Commas in wierd places, seemingly random capitalization everywhere, and soft consonants everywhere. It's awesome.
Abdhyius on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I still do not see the distinction of something being atop or under the constitution.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
If you're using a building analogue, then both form the base.
If you're imagining everything hanging, then both are at the top.
Now you are saying that they're functionally similar, right? Like I said from the start.
I never disagreed with you. Talk to spool 'bout that.
haha
I may be too sleepy to try and talk about big issues right now. Sorry dude, my mistake!
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
There aren't any rights espoused in the preamble! WTF man? And I meant a binding part of the Constitution.
We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There are no rights in the Preamble. I think you are confused here, dude.
(I wrote that out from memory!)
I wonder if the clauses listed are meant to be listed in order of priority.
I know so little about your Constitution, America.
0
Options
mysticjuicer[he/him] I'm a muscle wizardand I cast P U N C HRegistered Userregular
It is so fucking weird to live for a few days with signifigantly impaired brain function then get better.
It's like that Poul Anderson book "Brain Wave" (excellent read btw).
You too? Seems like everyone was having problems. What gives?
Bashed my head and got a concussion last Tuesday. Everything has just been so slow and hurty since (getting better but slowly). And my memory has been scary bad.
Chu: thai sounds awesome but i am in the cafeteria so not an option.
If the king is dead and there are no suitable heirs, a new king or queen shall be chosen by the Storting.
EDIT: Or "Storthing" as it actually says here. Man why did we ever stop writing like this. Commas in wierd places, seemingly random capitalization everywhere, and soft consonants everywhere. It's awesome.
I think the most recent amendment made here was when Princess Victoria was born, because up until then only the first son was next in line. So at least we don't discriminate there any more.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
The government will be arguing that today, as I understand it. Alito and possibly other Justices were peeved the government was arguing it wasn't a tax (so they can get a decision now since you can't rule on a tax until its levied) yesterday but will be arguing that it counts under this clause today.
I don't really understand this maneuver, BTW. It seems like this is just going to make it more difficult on them.
They have a difficult argument to make, yeah. Also, from the reviews I've read the Solicitor General didn't advance a General Welfare clause argument today. It might be in the briefs? The justices didn't ask about it either, from what I've read. I'll listen to the arguments later tonight.
I mean, the popular arguments for the mandate's constitutionality is that it is functionally identical to a tax and if they're going to argue that it's not a tax, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
There are other collateral consequences such as for people on probation who are disobeying the law, if they don't buy health insurance they ... could be subject to having their supervised release revoked.
Suppose a person does not purchase insurance ... pays the penalty instead, and that person finds herself in a position where she is asked the question, ‘have you ever violated any federal law,’ would that person have violated a federal law?
Posts
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
In Communist North Korea, the government tells you who you can and cannot marry.
I want a hot wife too
like don draper's wife (as of season 2 episode 7)
And since every place where it says the King it means "The King in Council of State" and that really just means "Council of State" IE the government
it means the king would have to personally do every single government function.
I got some communist literature laying around from my great depression era literature class, interesting stuff. Interesting to see how they tried to make things like the collective novel.
It does not change what I originally said. If there are problems changing the document - it's age will be a problem.
After which you went Olol internets.
what's even worse is the trend in the last 15ish years to make "faith" the major value / virtue to be aspired to.
There are few things so sickening as a character going on about "it doesn't matter what you have faith in, only that you have faith".
Give me a good ole fire and brimstone evangelical homophobic cross burning KKK member over that coded bullshit any day.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
it's atop in the sense that it is built upon the base. It's easier to change what's on top than the base.
Or, not actually the government because the cabinet doesn't actually make any laws.
Ugghhhhh, she's like a Grace Kelly robot that runs on childishness and misdirected hostility.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
You too? Seems like everyone was having problems. What gives?
What the hell.
The King in Council of State has the right to pardon criminals after verdict has fallen.
but the criminal has the right to deny the pardon.
Life's been good.
The preamble is not considered legally binding.
It provides constitutional scholars and justices clues regarding the motivations of the founding fathers, but it is not itself law.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The systems sounds functionally the same although the US one seems more specific, whereas ours are broader. In both cases government is formed in accordance with the document. In both cases is the constitution difficult to change - I believe ours take two or three changes of powers to pass an amendment. Both cases the document guarantees rights.
Why is one atop?
Which is exactly what I said, since constitutional law is basically just searching out for what the founders meant. It's silly to remove it completely from the equation.
I don't really understand this maneuver, BTW. It seems like this is just going to make it more difficult on them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There is an obsession with freedom in our western zeitgeist, a sort of monotonous oversimplification that not only assumes freedom is an end, not a means, it does not engage the complications of freedom. A genetically engineered caste of labourers in BNW is not unfree in the typical sense, though their individual will is itself subordinate
If you're using a building analogue, then both form the base.
If you're imagining everything hanging, then both are at the top.
she's hot though, that's all I'm commenting on
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
Bashed my head and got a concussion last Tuesday. Everything has just been so slow and hurty since (getting better but slowly). And my memory has been scary bad.
Chu: thai sounds awesome but i am in the cafeteria so not an option.
Now you are saying that they're functionally similar, right? Like I said from the start.
There aren't any rights espoused in the preamble! WTF man? And I meant a binding part of the Constitution.
We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There are no rights in the Preamble. I think you are confused here, dude.
(I wrote that out from memory!)
your "conservative" when it comes to government power, is the polar opposite to most other places.
I mean hell, our conservative party was formed in opposition to democracy.
I never disagreed with you. Talk to spool 'bout that.
They have a difficult argument to make, yeah. Also, from the reviews I've read the Solicitor General didn't advance a General Welfare clause argument today. It might be in the briefs? The justices didn't ask about it either, from what I've read. I'll listen to the arguments later tonight.
EDIT: Or "Storthing" as it actually says here. Man why did we ever stop writing like this. Commas in wierd places, seemingly random capitalization everywhere, and soft consonants everywhere. It's awesome.
I may be too sleepy to try and talk about big issues right now. Sorry dude, my mistake!
I wonder if the clauses listed are meant to be listed in order of priority.
I know so little about your Constitution, America.
Damn. : (
Hope you're feeling hale and healthy again soon.
I think the most recent amendment made here was when Princess Victoria was born, because up until then only the first son was next in line. So at least we don't discriminate there any more.
I mean, the popular arguments for the mandate's constitutionality is that it is functionally identical to a tax and if they're going to argue that it's not a tax, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Edit: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2012/03/supreme_court_weighs_obamacare_and_its_jurisdiction_over_the_affordable_care_act_s_constitutionality_.html
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Unless, wierdly, he's been at every storting since the last election.