House Republicans Take Action to Fix the Deficit

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
First tell us where the constitution forbids it. If something is unconstitional, it must directly contradict something in the constitution. Delegated powers for congress are broad for a reason - so that it can effectively conduct the people's business. A specific constitutional power is not required for Rep. Boehner to go take a shit. That is how constitutional law works. So, if it is unconstitutional - show me where the constitution prevents the government funding CPB.

You've only demonstrated you have a profound misunderstanding of constitutional law. Craig had it right when he said:

Actually, to be fair, the constitution does work on the principle that the government only has the powers granted to it in the constitution.

To be more accurate, he should've added the word "federal" in there, but still, he's got the basic principle.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Yes, it does seem so radical to believe the constitution actually means what it says. And we wonder why this country is going down the tubes.

And no, not until this century has the Constitution been so ignored and thrown out the window with so much disregard.

The people on the supreme court are humans and not demi-gods and are not infallible.
Excuse me for having individual thoughts of my own.

Carry on sheep.

You're basically arguing a ridiculous point, that Congress can only spend on a few matters, despite that Congress has a taxing and associated implicit spending power. By the way, where in the Constitution does it allow the US to possess nuclear weapons? I don't see the word nuclear anywhere in the Constitution. How about an Air Force? Other branches of the military are mentioned, but I see nothing about an Air Force. I guess these are all unconstitutional, too.

Geeze, you have just put up one of the dumbest Constitutional arguments that I've ever seen. That's impressive.

Carry on anarchist.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Yes, it does seem so radical to believe the constitution actually means what it says.

It does mean what it says, but if you think it means only what it says then yes, that's a radical position.

And no, not until this century has the Constitution been so ignored and thrown out the window with so much disregard.

Hyperbole, and factually incorrect as well. So, par.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
That's the people's and the propagandists' fault, not the Democrats' fault.

Harry Truman said, give the people choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican and a Republicans, and they'll pick the real thing every time.

People who are fed and fall for straw men about Democrats are nt a flaw in Democrats.

The people have chosen very poorly in many elections.

So, assuming that's true, what follows? After all, you say the people have chosen poorly not just once, but in many elections. What's the fix?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
You again fail to justify the funding of NPR under the powers Article 1 Section 8 in the US Constitution. Get back to me when you can do that. If you can't, then NPR should be defunded.

Again with this. It is safe to assume that laws already passed are constitutional unless there is specific reason to assume that they are not. This smacks of the stunt that Republicans recently pulled with requiring that all bills have a certification of constitutional authority before they are passed by the House. This has never been required in the entire history since ratification. The only difference here is that it is being applied retroactively to things that the right does not like in an attempt to discredit it. Must we go back over the entire federal code/congressional record and re-certify everything? Some would say yes, but it is a fool's errand.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
So, assuming that's true, what follows? After all, you say the people have chosen poorly not just once, but in many elections. What's the fix?

Same as always - give them another chance to make an informed decision. This is why we have elections on a regular basis. The self-correction mechanism is already built in. Even those of us who believe that we a society have chosen poorly endorse this. Everybody makes bad decisions in life - which includes the ballot box. If there is a better way to correct this - I'm all ears.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
You're basically arguing a ridiculous point, that Congress can only spend on a few matters, despite that Congress has a taxing and associated implicit spending power. By the way, where in the Constitution does it allow the US to possess nuclear weapons? I don't see the word nuclear anywhere in the Constitution. How about an Air Force? Other branches of the military are mentioned, but I see nothing about an Air Force. I guess these are all unconstitutional, too.

Geeze, you have just put up one of the dumbest Constitutional arguments that I've ever seen. That's impressive.

Carry on anarchist.

I would argue that having nuclear weapons falls under congresses power to "raise armies and navies" and that it has the "necessary and proper" power to construct arms and ordinance to defend the united states.

And yes, I do believe that "technically" the US Air Force is unconstitutional, but I think its a good idea and the constitution should be amended to allow for Air and Space Forces.

Strict constitutionalist is now == anarchist? lulz ok

I'm fine with a state funding its own public news but NOT the federal government.

In a time of fiscal crisis I believe its an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of the federal government and ask if we are following the constitution and ask maybe we should not be spending money to fund news agencies?

I would not want to start with removing programs that would hurt the poor or elderly since they can not be thrown on the street since they are now dependant on the programs we have instituted but things like funding for NPR are easy choices to forgo in a time of crisis.

I much rather a news agency get money from voluntary individual donors and not the federal government. I don't want them to spin anything that fits with the current government agenda, republican or democrat.
 
Last edited:

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Same as always - give them another chance to make an informed decision. This is why we have elections on a regular basis. The self-correction mechanism is already built in. Even those of us who believe that we a society have chosen poorly endorse this. Everybody makes bad decisions in life - which includes the ballot box. If there is a better way to correct this - I'm all ears.

Who was it who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I would argue that having nuclear weapons falls under congresses power to "raise armies and navies" and that it has the "necessary and proper" power to construct arms and ordinance to defend the united states.

And yes, I do believe that "technically" the US Air Force is unconstitutional, but I think its a good idea and the constitution should be amended to allow for Air and Space Forces.

Strict constitutionalist is now == anarchist? lulz ok

You're well beyond a strict constitutionalist.

Moreover, the founders could not have even imagined nuclear weapons. As such, nuclear weapons are not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution. As such, since I am now a 'true' strict constitutionalist, nuclear weapons are unconstitutional, as is the Air Force. At least you agree with me on the latter.

Carry on, Anarchist.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
You're well beyond a strict constitutionalist.

Moreover, the founders could not have even imagined nuclear weapons. As such, nuclear weapons are not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution. As such, since I am now a 'true' strict constitutionalist, nuclear weapons are unconstitutional, as is the Air Force. At least you agree with me on the latter.

Carry on, Anarchist.

Are ships not necessary and proper to provide for a navy?
Yes.
Does the constitution need to mention them?
No because building or purchasing ships is "necessary and proper" to provide for a navy. It says that the congress has the powers necessary and proper to carry out the before mentioned powers (having a navy for example).

This isn't that hard.

Anarchist advocate for an abolition of the state. I have done no such thing.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
What? That borders on nonsensical.

What don't you understand? The constitution is intentionally short and cannot possibly apply as written to every future unforeseen circumstance. Yet it was artfully worded to allow reasonable interpretation.

The constitution means what it says, but it also means more than is simply in black and white. Do you believe there is any limit on free speech? The 1st amendment doesn't provide any exceptions. But essentially everyone agrees that there are limits and that infringing can be permissible and constitutional. Do you understand that free speech includes nonverbal acts as well? It doesn't say so in the constitution. If you read only what is written and refuse to, you know, think about what's written, the document is useless.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Are ships not necessary and proper to provide for a navy?
Yes.
Does the constitution need to mention them?
No because building or purchasing ships is "necessary and proper" to provide for a navy. It says that the congress has the powers necessary and proper to carry out the before mentioned powers (having a navy for example).

This isn't that hard.

Anarchist advocate for an abolition of the state. I have done no such thing.

Nuclear weapons aren't necessary and proper for anything that Constitution explicitly allows. Ships are fine to provide for a navy since a navy is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, nuclear weapons are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and the framers could never have imagined nuclear weapons. As such, nuclear weapons are unconstitutional, unless you have a more broad interpretation of the Constitution and says that it means more than what it says.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,671
28,824
136
NPR 26 million
Oil industry 4 billion

Those Republicans sure know how to cut the deficit!!!!
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
And yes, I do believe that "technically" the US Air Force is unconstitutional, but I think its a good idea and the constitution should be amended to allow for Air and Space Forces.

So everything is OK as long as you think it's a good idea?

Or do you think we need a constitution like the EU? They threw everything but the kitchen sink into that monstrosity (including tariffs on cheese and other nonsense).
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
And yes, I do believe that "technically" the US Air Force is unconstitutional, but I think its a good idea and the constitution should be amended to allow for Air and Space Forces.

The const already allows for Air and Space and future time traveling forces. The const refers to our armies. Rational minds recognize this would include new technologies that expand those armies. Should we amend the constitution before the fed can pass any laws regarding the internet?

You realize the constitution has been amended 17 times following its passage with the bill of rights. That's 17 times in 230odd years. This is b/c our elected leaders were smart enough to know you don't fuck with the founding document every time a new word is invented.

How is it you're on the ridiculous side of every thread on the front page? Please post in the sex-ed thread defending the spending of billions on abstinence only education to earn the record.
 
Last edited:

comptr6

Senior member
Feb 22, 2011
246
0
0
All things are not constitutional just because the supreme court has not ruled they are not.
They are either constitutional or not.

Point me to the clause, not the section, I'll be waiting.


I agree with you 100%. There is no way the funding of Non Profit Public Broadcasting is constitutional, I was just making an example of a pathetic liberal argument. There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that gives congress the ability to spend money. Only an idiot libtard would say so. They would also say something stupid like Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 gives Congress the ability to tax and spend, and to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Then they would probably point out the supreme court decided in Helvering v Davis:

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.
and even worse, if they would actually read the CPB act of 1967:

(5) it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation;
(7) it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States;

Stupid liberals.
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
So everything is OK as long as you think it's a good idea?

Or do you think we need a constitution like the EU? They threw everything but the kitchen sink into that monstrosity (including tariffs on cheese and other nonsense).

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was ok, I said an Air Force is a good idea to defend the United States. One of the primary functions of the government is to defend us from foreign enemies. Are you going to argue that its not a good idea?

I said the authorization of an air force should be added to the constitution because it is a good idea. But under my interpretation of the constitution it is not constitutional.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Nuclear weapons aren't necessary and proper for anything that Constitution explicitly allows. Ships are fine to provide for a navy since a navy is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, nuclear weapons are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and the framers could never have imagined nuclear weapons. As such, nuclear weapons are unconstitutional, unless you have a more broad interpretation of the Constitution and says that it means more than what it says.

Its a weapon, the constitution does not need to say that the army can have muskets, rifles, cannons, artillery, bombs etc

It is proper and necessary for an army to have weapons.
If you can't follow that logic I don't know what else I can do for you.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
The const already allows for Air and Space and future time traveling forces. The const refers to our armies. Rational minds recognize this would include new technologies that expand those armies. Should we amend the constitution before the fed can pass any laws regarding the internet?

You realize the constitution has been amended 17 times following its passage with the bill of rights. That's 17 times in 230odd years. This is b/c our elected leaders were smart enough to know you don't fuck with the founding document every time a new word is invented.

How is it you're on the ridiculous side of every thread on the front page? Please post in the sex-ed thread defending the spending of billions on abstinence only education to earn the record.


I don't believe the federal government SHOULD be regulating the internet, so no.

What are you trying to paint me as a religious conservative prude? Sorry, you won't get far with that. I don't give a shit what the government teaches our kids, I don't even believe the government should even be teaching our kids. Certainly not the federal government. My kids will never go to a shitty .gov school.

Look at the great job they've done. Working out great isn't it?
They can't do anything right.

Even if I did agree that its allowed under the constitution, its still a shitty use of our resources and should still be defunded.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
I agree with you 100%. There is no way the funding of Non Profit Public Broadcasting is constitutional, I was just making an example of a pathetic liberal argument. There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that gives congress the ability to spend money. Only an idiot libtard would say so. They would also say something stupid like Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 gives Congress the ability to tax and spend, and to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Then they would probably point out the supreme court decided in Helvering v Davis:

and even worse, if they would actually read the CPB act of 1967:



Stupid liberals.

Well there ya go, I guess if the government has the power to tax and spend it can tax and spend on anything thats for the common good.

So in your opinion what does that exclude? Anything?
The federal government has the power to tax and spend and do anything it wants?

So if congress can do pretty much anything as long as its in the interest of the general welfare then what can't it do?
What does it do that anyone would claim that is not in the general welfare?

And on that note what powers are delegated to the states? Since you've conceded that the federal government can do anything I guess the states have no power right?
Because the 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to Washington are delegated to the states.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I don't believe the federal government SHOULD be regulating the internet, so no.

What are you trying to paint me as a religious conservative prude? Sorry, you won't get far with that. I don't give a shit what the government teaches our kids, I don't even believe the government should even be teaching our kids. Certainly not the federal government. My kids will never go to a shitty .gov school.

Look at the great job they've done. Working out great isn't it?
They can't do anything right.

Even if I did agree that its allowed under the constitution, its still a shitty use of our resources and should still be defunded.

Way to pick the low hanging fruit to respond to and ignore the substantive parts of my post.

I didn't say regulating, I said pass any law whatsoever regarding it including spending, development, education or other. You know the internet was devd by the govt but there's no explicit provision in the constitution for it. We could play that game all day as a few things have been invented since 1787 and we're not going to amend the const to deal with them all.

I wasn't calling you a prude, I was saying you'll take the side in every thread that makes the least sense. Like you know, amending the constitution to say "air force" b/c you think 'army' isn't inclusive enough. If we had your way the const would be as long as most state consts.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Way to pick the low hanging fruit to respond to and ignore the substantive parts of my post.

I didn't say regulating, I said pass any law whatsoever regarding it including spending, development, education or other. You know the internet was devd by the govt but there's no explicit provision in the constitution for it. We could play that game all day as a few things have been invented since 1787 and we're not going to amend the const to deal with them all.

I wasn't calling you a prude, I was saying you'll take the side in every thread that makes the least sense. Like you know, amending the constitution to say "air force" b/c you think 'army' isn't inclusive enough. If we had your way the const would be as long as most state consts.

I wouldn't want the constitution to be amended all the time. I simply want the federal government to stop doing most of the things it is doing, including funding news agencies, oil companies, etc

I don't just want to rescind funding to NPR because I have "right-wing" views or however you want to paint me as.

I don't even find NPR that biased if at all and I think they do what they do pretty well. I just don't think washington should be involved with it.
 

comptr6

Senior member
Feb 22, 2011
246
0
0
Well there ya go, I guess if the government has the power to tax and spend it can tax and spend on anything thats for the common good.

I can't believe you agree w/ liberals. Disgusting. Just because some activists judges on the supreme court said it was constitutional doesn't make it so, right? I mean that's like believing what biologists say about Darwinism just because they're scientists!

So in your opinion what does that exclude? Anything?
The federal government has the power to tax and spend and do anything it wants?

No! Only things that are actually good for the country. The military. Wars. Faith based groups. Business incentives. Stuff like that.

So if congress can do pretty much anything as long as its in the interest of the general welfare then what can't it do?
What does it do that anyone would claim that is not in the general welfare?

Just ask yourself "is this something a liberal would be for?" If the answer is yes, then it's unconstitutional.

And on that note what powers are delegated to the states? Since you've conceded that the federal government can do anything I guess the states have no power right?
Because the 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to Washington are delegated to the states.

I never conceded anything of the sort, you did. As far as I'm concerned the ferderal government is far to powerful and has to be stopped.

National Public Radio is just one clear example of how the federal government is stealing power away from the states and violating the Tenth Amendment.