Rick Perry and his interview of death

[ProfJohn]

In your opinion, if the Constitution doesn't expressly deny a power to the states, the states can do whatever they please? I'll give an an example, immigration. Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from enacting their own immigration laws, states can enact immigration laws so long as it doesn't interfere with federal ones. Therefore, a state can pass laws that require additional requirements to becoming a citizen?

Citizenship is determined by the national government.

States could adopt rules towards state citizenship, but national would always be determined by the Feds.

 

[her209]

Citizenship is determined by the national government.

States could adopt rules towards state citizenship, but national would always be determined by the Feds.

Why? There's nothing in the Constitution that says States are prohibited from doing what I suggested. Or are you saying that because its an enumerated power of Congress, the states are implicitly prohibited?

 

[Nebor]

I'm pretty sure you people are arguing over nothing.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I guess it's just semantics, but I'm not aware of too many people who believe the Constitution to be 'fairly specific'... which is sort of the whole point.

Listing 17 powers and excluding everything else seems to be pretty specific to me. If you want to believe that the necessary and proper clause allows them to do things other than that I can see why you think it's vague, but I seriously question the reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills of people that believe that.

 

[alphatarget1]

Rick Perry is a crook.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I too want to see SS ended. It has outlived its usefullness.

I am old, get a SS check and I vote.

I will vote for Mr. Perry.

"In the Hank Skinner case, Perry has actively fought DNA testing that could confirm the innocence (or guilt) of another Texas man on death row. Skinner was at one point hours from execution before the Supreme Court intervened (the intervening justice was Antonin Scalia, believe it or not). In Skinner’s case, the prosecution actually began to conduct DNA testing on crime scene evidence, then stopped when the first tests confirmed Skinner’s version of events. Perry again justified willful ignorance in this case by simply noting that he’s personally convinced of Skinner’s guilt.

"

 

[sportage]

Perry creeps me out. He's like the Reagan's evil brother inbred by the Bush family.
His body is shaped kinda elephant man-ish, and he looks not that well health wise. His skin has this mortuary gray look to it. Similar to a failed embalming, if there is such a thing.
I can just imagine perry up there on stage debating against Obama. Slim, trim, fit, healthy looking Obama. Obama looks like he just came in from the gym, or playing golf, or running 5 miles.
Perry looks like he should be on set waiting for the director to yell action in another episode taping of THE MUNSTERS. Dress perry up in a cape, some vampire teeth, and red lips and you have grandpa Munster.

 

[fskimospy]

Citizenship is determined by the national government.

States could adopt rules towards state citizenship, but national would always be determined by the Feds.

That is incorrect. Please go read the 14th amendment.

Amazing how people so obsessed with the Constitution know so little about it.

 

[Wreckem]

I know that Social Security and Medicare are NOT interstate commerce.

I know that the original intent was to have a small central government and leave the rest up to the state or local governments.

BTW did you click the link and read the article?
He isn't against the concepts of SS or Medicare. He just believes that the states would do a better job of running the programs than the feds.

California has all kinds of awesome public benefits, but you have to pay for them via taxes. If want to live that life style then that is your right. But if you don't want to live that way then you can move to a cheaper state.

That is HIS point. Let the state decide what to offer or not offer and then let the people decide where they want to live and what the want to pay for.

Yeah and just how well has Texas done at healthcare?

Has the most uninsured, the most uninsured children, etc etc. And you know the $6billion left in the rainy day fund? Well Gov. Goodhair signed a budget that underfunded medicaid by ~$4-6billion, so in essence the rainy day fund is gone because Texas will have to use it to cover that shortfall when it comes due.

Yeah states would sure do healthcare better than the feds.

I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Perry. Because Perry is an incompetent twat that caters to Big Biz far more than any other politician I have ever seen.

 

[fskimospy]

Listing 17 powers and excluding everything else seems to be pretty specific to me. If you want to believe that the necessary and proper clause allows them to do things other than that I can see why you think it's vague, but I seriously question the reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills of people that believe that.

Those 17 powers are breathtakingly broad and it has nothing to do with the necessary and proper clause. They were made breathtakingly broad on purpose.

 

[HomerJS]

"In the Hank Skinner case, Perry has actively fought DNA testing that could confirm the innocence (or guilt) of another Texas man on death row. Skinner was at one point hours from execution before the Supreme Court intervened (the intervening justice was Antonin Scalia, believe it or not). In Skinner’s case, the prosecution actually began to conduct DNA testing on crime scene evidence, then stopped when the first tests confirmed Skinner’s version of events. Perry again justified willful ignorance in this case by simply noting that he’s personally convinced of Skinner’s guilt.

"

Wow. If this is even remotely true nobody with half a brain could vote for Perry just on this alone. Complete abuse of gubernatorial powers and in a death penaly case!?!

 

[Wreckem]

Wow. If this is even remotely true nobody with half a brain could vote for Perry just on this alone. Complete abuse of gubernatorial powers and in a death penaly case!?!

I don't know the specifics of the alleged case, but other people will say the Gov. does not have the power to pardon or commute sentences without a recommendation from the Pardon and Parole Board.


That is true, but he has appointed everyone on the board and could get the board to do what he wanted.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I disagree.

As I have seen in over 30 yrs of tax law, the more you add the more you create opportunities to skirt the law.

The further you define something, the easier is it for me to make sure that I don't (exactly) meet that definition and thus am excluded from it.

Fern

Depends on what your definition of is, doesn't it?

 

[FerrelGeek]

The Constitution isn't intended to provide answers, it's intended to place limits on government power.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest
it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry -

This is what our founders intended.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Uhmm, it's designed to provide answers on the scope and limits of federal responsibilities and authorities. That's the whole point.

The idea that the Constitution is designed to limit federal power has twisted history into an exact 180. The Constitution was designed to vastly INCREASE federal power over what currently existed. Of course it was designed with limits in mind, but to think that its purpose was to limit federal power is not correct.

You are correct in stating that it was an improvement over the Articles of Confederation. But that's as far as it goes. I doubt very seriously that the founders intended that the federal government have the scope and power that it does today. The first 10 amendments were added to limit the scope and power of the federal government as many of the founders wisely realized that the unamended constitution could be easily twisted and abused.

 

[fskimospy]

You are correct in stating that it was an improvement over the Articles of Confederation. But that's as far as it goes. I doubt very seriously that the founders intended that the federal government have the scope and power that it does today. The first 10 amendments were added to limit the scope and power of the federal government as many of the founders wisely realized that the unamended constitution could be easily twisted and abused.

You do realize that many of the founders wanted a federal government far stronger than the one we have today, right? Alexander Hamilton for one envisioned a president who was little more than an elected king, serving a lifetime term.

All that being said, I don't really see why it matters what they thought. The world in 1789 was a vastly different place than the world today. Why would the appropriate amount of government 222 years ago have any bearing on the appropriate amount of government now?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Wow. If this is even remotely true nobody with half a brain could vote for Perry just on this alone. Complete abuse of gubernatorial powers and in a death penaly case!?!

The part that is disturbing is that he insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, on doing nothing because he held a personal belief that the man was guilty.

Lets see, faith in an outcome despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...

Do we really want to see this again?

We had 8 disastrous years of this and it did almost irreparable harm to the country.

The worst characteristic a leader can have is the refusal to change one's course in the face of changing circumstances. This is why these no tax pledges are beyond stupid, they indicate an inability to acknowledge that future events could dictate a need to change policy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest
it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry -

This is what our founders intended.

In the context of their time, and that is only one founder, government and economic power were represented by the same group.

I would argue that the true aim of the constitution is to restrain power, regardless of its source, be it government or economic.

 

[FerrelGeek]

You do realize that many of the founders wanted a federal government far stronger than the one we have today, right? Alexander Hamilton for one envisioned a president who was little more than an elected king, serving a lifetime term.

All that being said, I don't really see why it matters what they thought. The world in 1789 was a vastly different place than the world today. Why would the appropriate amount of government 222 years ago have any bearing on the appropriate amount of government now?

Yes, I'm very aware of Hamilton's position and I'm glad he didn't prevail. I still believe that we should exercise careful restraint when giving power to government in general. No, I'm not an anarchist, I believe in small unobtrusive government.

 

[FerrelGeek]

In the context of their time, and that is only one founder, government and economic power were represented by the same group.

I would argue that the true aim of the constitution is to restrain power, regardless of its source, be it government or economic.

I'm good with that.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Those 17 powers are breathtakingly broad and it has nothing to do with the necessary and proper clause. They were made breathtakingly broad on purpose.

Breathtaking broad relative to what? Compared to the Articles of Confederation? Sure. Compared the powers the British Crown had over the colonies? Not at all. Compared to the government we have today? I think you know the answer to that.

I guess it comes down to your perspective. If you your goal is to find that it allows policies you like than you can interpret almost any document in a broad way. If you come at it trying to understand what the people who wrote it actually meant, then I just don't believe it's nearly as broad as you do.

 

[fskimospy]

Breathtaking broad relative to what? Compared to the Articles of Confederation? Sure. Compared the powers the British Crown had over the colonies? Not at all. Compared to the government we have today? I think you know the answer to that.

I guess it comes down to your perspective. If you your goal is to find that it allows policies you like than you can interpret almost any document in a broad way. If you come at it trying to understand what the people who wrote it actually meant, then I just don't believe it's nearly as broad as you do.

Do you really believe that the people who created the 4th amendment expected people more than 200 years later should attempt to divine the legality of a 21st century search based upon what a man in the 1790s would have considered reasonable? That interstate commerce in 1789 was the same thing as interstate commerce today with the internet?

Maybe you can explain it to me. I seriously don't know what reasonable person would expect to govern a 21st century country based upon the interpretations of broad clauses by someone who had been dead for 200 years. I also am unaware of any writings by those who wrote the Constitution that looked at it that way. Why would we even want to do that?

 

[Fern]

You do realize that many of the founders wanted a federal government far stronger than the one we have today, right? Alexander Hamilton for one envisioned a president who was little more than an elected king, serving a lifetime term.

All that being said, I don't really see why it matters what they thought. The world in 1789 was a vastly different place than the world today. Why would the appropriate amount of government 222 years ago have any bearing on the appropriate amount of government now?

The minds of progressives/Libs./Dems concern me.

Fern

 

[RabidMongoose]

Man, Rick Perry is dumb. The Supreme Court has already said that Social Security is constitutional.

 

[RabidMongoose]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest
it come to dominate our lives and interests".
- Patrick Henry -

This is what our founders intended.

That's just one man. There is no possible way to come to a single conclusion as to what the founders intended for the Constitution.

First,not all of them thought the same. Some had vastly different opinions. Second, who are all of the founders? The men at the constitutional convention? What about each state's legislators that ratified it? How could you possible come to some sort of conclusion that summarizes all of these vastly different opinions into one single interpretation?