Positive Liberty vs. Constitution?

[Souron]

The Constitution provides, in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

This would imply the power to acquire property (with Congress not necessarily being the party to do the acquiring). Clauses dealing with treaties, appropriations, and the necessary and proper clause could also be seen as supportive of the Lousiana Purchase.

Congress, sure, but it was the president who authorized the purchase. There wasn't even a law about buying property. Necessary and proper is completely irrelevant, because there are no laws involved.

 

[Berzerker]

As for Ron Paul, he leads a cult-of-personality leader. He's the Republican LaRouche. His followers should wake up.

Hardly, he just happens to be the candidate closest to the Constitution in the minds of a few million people. You could replace him with anyone else sharing a similar ideology and the same people would be supporting the anyone. While he seems to be nice (too nice for the slime of politics), Paul's actually mediocre in debates and certainly would not be accused of having a "commanding" personality. The charge is ludicrous, not one logical thing about it...

 

[Berzerker]

First, that is quoted from the Declaration of Independence which has no legal bearing in the United States.

Sure it does, these rights (property was replaced by pursuit of happiness) are a given in the Constitution. Read the 5th, it assumes we have life, liberty and property before these can be taken via due process. The problem is politicians simply write laws that make life, liberty and property illegal then use doublespeak to charge us with the crime of being free.

The Constitutions comes out and says you have a right to worship as you please, by saying Congress CANNOT establish religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - the latter protects our religious freedom, the former protects religion. But you were close

Similarly, the Constitution should say what Congress CANNOT do even if the people demand it (i.e. what positive liberties it cannot fulfill). One good example would be, Congress cannot privatize the military, even if the people demand it, because a national military is key to the security of a democracy.

I think that might pertain to the navy, the Framers opposed standing armies and wanted to rely heavily on state militias while maintaining arsenals and warships. Congress does have the power to grant letters of Marquee which I think refers to privateers and just because Congress has a power does not mean they have to exercise it, much less monopolize it. The fight over private postal systems comes to mind.

The Constitution forbids retroactive legislation to both the Congress and the states. Unfortunately the corrupt courts (gee, who nominates and confirms judges?) have decided that refers only to criminal law and not taxes. But the Constitution explains to the states why they cant pass retroactive legislation, because the power jeopardizes contracts. Thats financial - taxing people retroactively could cause bankruptcies.

 

[JollyRoger]

Congress, sure, but it was the president who authorized the purchase. There wasn't even a law about buying property. Necessary and proper is completely irrelevant, because there are no laws involved.

The Constituion is silent on authority to purchase. It grants Congress the authority to dispose, which implies that somebody (but not who) can purchase.

 

[Souron]

The Constituion is silent on authority to purchase. It grants Congress the authority to dispose, which implies that somebody (but not who) can purchase.

Not true at all. The founding fathers had not conceived of purchasing land, and thus it is omitted. At best, the founding fathers assumed that land could be obtained by war.

Furthermore, the powers of the president are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Any power not explicitly granted by the Constitution or the law, cannot be assumed by the president or any federal body. There is no clause to assume the president has the power to purchase, therefore the president doesn't have that power.

I do agree* with you that the necessary and proper clause would apply to grant congress authority to make laws concerning this issue, including laws giving the president the authority to do exactly what Jefferson did. However, no such laws were passed.

*only so long as nobody challenges the claim. I have not reviewed the matter confidently enough to defend the position

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

It's a shame that the OP was framed entirely within the American bubble, so I won't be voting, but I think that constitutions are there to protect us from things that democracy can't, and to secure democracy itself. On all other matters, 'a piece of paper says so' falls way short in my view.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not true at all. The founding fathers had not conceived of purchasing land, and thus it is omitted. At best, the founding fathers assumed that land could be obtained by war.

Do you think the fouding fathers may have conceived the need to purchase property for federal courthouses? If Congress approprated general funds, do you think the executive branch would have been able to spend it for such land purchases?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Sure it does, these rights (property was replaced by pursuit of happiness) are a given in the Constitution. Read the 5th, it assumes we have life, liberty and property before these can be taken via due process. The problem is politicians simply write laws that make life, liberty and property illegal then use doublespeak to charge us with the crime of being free.

That's exactly what I said, pursuit of happiness isn't in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence which has no purpose as far as legal rights in the United States.