Vote yes or no on the bailout

[JohnRM]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 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.

That is a preamble. It is a summarization of what is contained in the U.S. Constitution. It does not grant any power to the government whatsoever. If it did, the remainder of the Constitution would be rendered useless and redundant as the government would have unlimited power to do whatever it wishes as long as it claimed it was doing so for the general welfare of the nation.

preamble; A preliminary introduction to a statute or constitution (usually explaining its purpose)

 

[emzie]

Well the Constitution sets up a framework to settle the question of "is this constitutional?" That's the final say on who's right. I don't think many judges would find that it is unconstitutional.

 

[GenMarshall]

Absolutely not!!!

 

[JollyRoger]

This part authorizes Congress to tax the people to pay for the institution of its other powers. No authorization to bail out private companies there.

There's that nasty general welfare in the clause though.

This one allows Congress to...well...regulate commerce, which is not bailing out private companies. No authorization there.

Regulate - 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

Commerce - Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information or money between two or more entities. Commerce functions as the central mechanism which drives capitalism and certain other economic systems

This one allows Congress to...well...coin money and set the value...

...do you even understand English?! Cause you seem to have such a hard time understanding the meaning of these words.

You changed the word "regulate" to "set". DO you have enough understanding of the English language to know that they have diferent meanings?

Yeah, that authorizes Congress to pass laws to execute the aforementioned powers. No authorization here to bail out private companies.

So the question becomes is it necesary and proper to bail out the financial system to provide for the general welfare, regulate commerce, or regulate the value of currency.

 

[JohnRM]

Well the Constitution sets up a framework to settle the question of "is this constitutional?" That's the final say on who's right. I don't think many judges would find that it is unconstitutional.

Most Americans prior to the civil war, and most people globally, prior to the 1700s, thought that slavery was just dandy. The majority doesn't decide what is right and in this case, the highly politically biased judges in this nation aren't exactly trustworthy are they? I mean, if 5 judge affirmed the individual right to bear arms and 4 dissented, then one side has to be wrong, yes? I'll leave it for another discussion for which side that is, but the point is that judges can be wrong, and once you accept that, it is not a stretch to believe that though most judges would not find this unconstitutional, it is indeed possible that they are all wrong.

 

[Cutlass]

This part authorizes Congress to tax the people to pay for the institution of its other powers. No authorization to bail out private companies there.




This one allows Congress to...well...regulate commerce, which is not bailing out private companies. No authorization there.




This one allows Congress to...well...coin money and set the value...

...do you even understand English?! Cause you seem to have such a hard time understanding the meaning of these words.



Yeah, that authorizes Congress to pass laws to execute the aforementioned powers. No authorization here to bail out private companies.

But nothing that would in any way limit the ability to do so either.

 

[JohnRM]

There's that nasty general welfare in the clause though.

The statement does not authorize Congress to promote the general welfare. It authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes for that purpose. The general welfare are those specific powers granted to Congress in the remainder of Section 8.

How do we know this? Because, if that were not the case, then it would not be necessary to later, again, grant Congress the power to "raise and support Armies" and to "provide and maintain a Navy". That first statement is simply authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes pay for the carrying out of its defined powers, generally speaking, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare."

Regulate - 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
5. to pay $700 billion to private companies that are on the verge of failure -- Opps! I don't belong here!

Commerce - Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information or money between two or more entities. Commerce functions as the central mechanism which drives capitalism and certain other economic systems

And using taxpayer money to pay the debts of private companies is not among the several definitions of 'regulate'.

You changed the word "regulate" to "set". DO you have enough understanding of the English language to know that they have diferent meanings?

Yes, I do. Of course regulating the value of currency has nothing to do with what is going on here, but feel free to continue to go off the topic, if you please.

So the question becomes is it necesary and proper to bail out the financial system to provide for the general welfare, regulate commerce, or regulate the value of currency.

Again, Congress does not have the power to bail out private companies. It is not listed among those powers considered to be among those providing for the general welfare, nor is it by definition regulating commerce, nor does it have anything to do with regulating the value of currency.

 

[JohnRM]

But nothing that would in any way limit the ability to do so either.

You're going to have to explain this better. Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't prohibit these powers to Congress? What is the point of the Constitution, then? If not explicitly define and limit the powers of Congress? If that were the case, the Constitution would set the structure of government, have a single statement saying that the government can do whatever it wants, and add the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, which aren't being protected at the moment.

 

[Dubai Vol]

the point is that judges can be wrong, and once you accept that, it is not a stretch to believe that though most judges would not find this unconstitutional, it is indeed possible that they are all wrong.

No, sorry, the point is that the government says it has the power to do this, and they don't give a tinker's damn about your opinion on constitutional law. They have the power whether you agree with it or not.

So while constitutional arguments may be fun, they are pointless. Congrees is not going to convene tomeorrow and say "hey, I read on CivFanatics that we don't have the authority to do this. Oh well, never mind."

 

[JohnRM]

No, sorry, the point is that the government says it has the power to do this, and they don't give a tinker's damn about your opinion on constitutional law. They have the power whether you agree with it or not.

So while constitutional arguments may be fun, they are pointless. Congrees is not going to convene tomeorrow and say "hey, I read on CivFanatics that we don't have the authority to do this. Oh well, never mind."

Of course not. Thus why it may be time to drag them out of their respective offices and hang them in the nearest courtyard. They are committing treason of the highest order.

 

[Dubai Vol]

Of course not. Thus why it may be time to drag them out of their respective offices and hang them in the nearest courtyard. They are committing treason of the highest order.

Yeah, you go right ahead and do that. Let us know how it works out for you.

Reality. You have to live in it even when it is unfair. Of course I got fed up with the bastages a long time ago. You see where I am.

Meanwhile, you might want to go easy on the whole "advocating the violent overthrow of the government" bit. I hear they frown on that.

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah, you go right ahead and do that. Let us know how it works out for you.

Reality. You have to live in it even when it is unfair. Of course I got fed up with the bastages a long time ago. You see where I am.

Of course I do, but what I don't have to do is keep quiet about my discontent. If everyone did so, nothing would ever change.

Meanwhile, you might want to go easy on the whole "advocating the violent overthrow of the government" bit. I hear they frown on that.

I may be taken away in black helicopters and men is ski-masks, in the middle of the night, but that threat shall not deter me from speaking my mind. Though, I would be interested to know if they'd have Thomas Jefferson locked up in there, with me.

 

[sonorakitch]

`I think the Treasury will pay back the $700 billion and make a considerable amount of money,'' Buffett said, adding that if he had $700 billion on the government's terms to buy distressed assets, he would. ``Unfortunately, I'm tapped out.''

~Chris

a;lsjdf;lkja

 

[JollyRoger]

I may be taken away in black helicopters and men is ski-masks, in the middle of the night, but that threat shall not deter me from speaking my mind. Though, I would be interested to know if they'd have Thomas Jefferson locked up in there, with me.

Nope, they didn't lock up Jefferson when he got all bitter about Hamilton winning the argument we are rehashing here.

 

[Bill3000]

Jefferson supported public education and was against patents

 

[mrt144]

Yeah, you go right ahead and do that. Let us know how it works out for you.

Reality. You have to live in it even when it is unfair. Of course I got fed up with the bastages a long time ago. You see where I am.

Meanwhile, you might want to go easy on the whole "advocating the violent overthrow of the government" bit. I hear they frown on that.

What do you do in dubai?

 

[Perfection]

If you give a mouse a 700 billion dollar cookie it's going to ask for a 1.2 trillion dollar glass of milk.

 

[Drewcifer]

Given the choice between a depression or running 10% inflation for 5 years and bailing out a bunch of people who dont deserve it I would grit my teeth and go with the latter.

It can't be said for sure that those are the choices but both are good possiblities.

The recession of 1981 was bad enough. I don't want to see an actual depression. I think a depression is more likely without the bailout than with.

 

[Cutlass]

You're going to have to explain this better. Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't prohibit these powers to Congress? What is the point of the Constitution, then? If not explicitly define and limit the powers of Congress? If that were the case, the Constitution would set the structure of government, have a single statement saying that the government can do whatever it wants, and add the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, which aren't being protected at the moment.

Since all the rational people involved believe that the Constitution allows it, and nothing in the Constitution can be construed to block it, then it is a legal alternative.

 

[emzie]

~Chris

a;lsjdf;lkja

WARREN BUFFET HAS SPOKEN.

/thread