6 ms·

Exactly! In addition, the 10th amendment should prevent, but has not stopped Congress from passing most of the laws it has passed. https://constitution.congre

Exactly! In addition, the 10th amendment should prevent, but has not stopped Congress from passing most of the laws it has passed. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

sidewndr46 4y ago
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's disregard for the document that purportedly grants them their legitimate legal authority? Congress actually voted against going to war against Libya in 2011, but Obama ignored them and destroyed Libya anyway. Conspiracy or disregard for the highest law in the land? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    Legally speaking, what is a war? Can an event look like a war, but is not a war? What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Is every event involving military action a war?
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Congratulations, you just summed up about 30% of Command and Staff College. /s Professionally, we discuss a continuum of armed conflict, ranging from competition (at the "infrared" end of the spectrum) through limited contingency operations, small wars, hybrid threats, etc. to total war. The Constitution has built into it certain assumptions about the world. Many of them either hold true or can be legally held true (e.g., there are inherent rights with inherent contours, such as for speech or keeping and bearing arms, that can be determined with historical analysis). Many cannot hold, and become vestigial and almost meaningless (e.g., a $20 threshold for jury trials in civil cases). Lastly, many cannot hold... and so the applicability of the provisions they implicate become open questions. It simply isn't the case that only nation-states can engage in armed conflict, or that they always make formal declarations of it (though I'd argue the AUMFs qualify for Constitutional purposes), or that all armed conflict will be at the level of total war. The substance of the power to declare war is to ensure the President cannot act unilaterally to call up Reservists or engage in conflict; Congress governs. I think that substance continues to be met, given the weave of the statutory scheme (Title 10, Subtitle E; contingency operation appropriations by Congress; AUMFs; etc.).
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >Is every event involving military action a war? Certainly not, which is why I only mentioned a few major foreign invasions that involved hundreds of thousands of our troops and killed millions of people. >What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Reasonable people can argue over exactly what that threshold is, but nobody reasonable would deny that our invasions of Vietnam and Iraq qualify as wars.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        Both were authorized by Congress though?
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    A conspiracy is secret. A conspiracy theory is often very public.
    - jakeogh 4y ago
      Indeed. Hence the need to apply a meaningless psyop label to distract from the fact that conspiracies are a significant chink of US law.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    > A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. conspiracy just means (Latin etymology) breathing together, i.e., being coherent...there's nothing about secret in the general case.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Indeed! Breathing together in the literal, but breath also carries connotations, as often expressed in the Greek pneuma - the Bible, according to Paul, was "theospneustos", God breathed, the soul is the "pneuma", so conspiring implies an intermingling.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Conspiracy in general, yes. "Conspiracy theory" is another thing, more specific than conspiracy.
    - thenewthotness 4y ago
      I think the implication is a bit more literal. When you conspire with someone you communicate secretly with them in order to plot and coordinate your actions. You do this by being in very close proximity to them and whispering, so close that you are sharing breath i.e. breathing together.
      - jjtheblunt 4y ago
        investors conspire in public to take over voting power, for instance, and do so in public to attract others
  - sanxiyn 4y ago
    The Congress in fact voted to go to war with Afghanistan, 420-1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... for details.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      "Authorization for use of military force" is not a declaration of war, despite what the DC blob and their corporate media surrogates would suggest. The whole concept behind checks and balances is that the Congress would retain the power to declare war on foreign nations. Not that they would abdicate their responsibility and pass a bill that gave the executive branch unlimited, undefined warmaking powers.
kccqzy 4y ago
The tenth amendment is certainly in effect. It's just that we have an expanded definition of commerce those days.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Not just definition. By any measure, or any definition, we have massively expanded inter-state commerce these days.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Indeed. When the Supreme Court rules that 6 MJ plants, grown and consumed on a homeowner’s property, falls under the power to regulate inter-state commerce, I think some of plot has been lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
lettergram 4y ago
There's a few reasons this broke down... 1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal government. States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. 2. The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money and enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. 3. The 16th amendment (1913) - Federal income tax - allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time. Those three amendments, in effect, decimated the federal system and centralized power. After that, they could pass what ever they wanted. IMO the internet is re-igniting a public debate and push towards populism -- that and that's why you saw the 2008 rise of Ron Paul, Occupy Wallstreet, Tea Party, Bernie Sandars and now MAGA. (yes, it was coupled with a financial crisis, but the government response led to push back).
- bitwize 4y ago
  Name the fucking enemy. Starts with a 'C' and ends in 'apitalism'. Read Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work. This is the way.
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    I fully agree with lettergram and disagree with naming capitalism as an 'enemy'. How do you think you're going to reduce poverty and create wealth without capitalism?
    - pasquinelli 4y ago
      the ussr and china both developed from feudalism without capitalism and lifted a huge number of people out of poverty. not advocating their system, (not not-advocating either), but they are counter examples.
      - lettergram 4y ago
        hmmm arguably capitalism was still required. Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. Further, their agricultural practices in general were learned from the capitalist countries and neither produced / produce enough. Both the USSR and China did / currently rely heavily on food imports. Arguably, they only escaped feudalism because capitalistic countries provided enough cheap food to the global market to transition their economies off of mass labor in fields (the basis of feudalism).

sidewndr46 4y ago

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. That the government routinely ignores the Constitution isn't a conspiracy, just a sad fact. How many wars have we been in over the last 70 years? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just to name a very few. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. How many times has the Congress voted to go to war? Is this just a conspiracy, or another example of our government's disregard for the document that purportedly grants them their legitimate legal authority? Congress actually voted against going to war against Libya in 2011, but Obama ignored them and destroyed Libya anyway. Conspiracy or disregard for the highest law in the land? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jonnybgood 4y ago
  Legally speaking, what is a war? Can an event look like a war, but is not a war? What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Is every event involving military action a war?
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Congratulations, you just summed up about 30% of Command and Staff College. /s Professionally, we discuss a continuum of armed conflict, ranging from competition (at the "infrared" end of the spectrum) through limited contingency operations, small wars, hybrid threats, etc. to total war. The Constitution has built into it certain assumptions about the world. Many of them either hold true or can be legally held true (e.g., there are inherent rights with inherent contours, such as for speech or keeping and bearing arms, that can be determined with historical analysis). Many cannot hold, and become vestigial and almost meaningless (e.g., a $20 threshold for jury trials in civil cases). Lastly, many cannot hold... and so the applicability of the provisions they implicate become open questions. It simply isn't the case that only nation-states can engage in armed conflict, or that they always make formal declarations of it (though I'd argue the AUMFs qualify for Constitutional purposes), or that all armed conflict will be at the level of total war. The substance of the power to declare war is to ensure the President cannot act unilaterally to call up Reservists or engage in conflict; Congress governs. I think that substance continues to be met, given the weave of the statutory scheme (Title 10, Subtitle E; contingency operation appropriations by Congress; AUMFs; etc.).
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >Is every event involving military action a war? Certainly not, which is why I only mentioned a few major foreign invasions that involved hundreds of thousands of our troops and killed millions of people. >What are the thresholds for calling an event a war? Reasonable people can argue over exactly what that threshold is, but nobody reasonable would deny that our invasions of Vietnam and Iraq qualify as wars.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      Both were authorized by Congress though?
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  A conspiracy is secret. A conspiracy theory is often very public.
  - jakeogh 4y ago
    Indeed. Hence the need to apply a meaningless psyop label to distract from the fact that conspiracies are a significant chink of US law.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  > A conspiracy theory is, by definition, a secret. conspiracy just means (Latin etymology) breathing together, i.e., being coherent...there's nothing about secret in the general case.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Indeed! Breathing together in the literal, but breath also carries connotations, as often expressed in the Greek pneuma - the Bible, according to Paul, was "theospneustos", God breathed, the soul is the "pneuma", so conspiring implies an intermingling.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Conspiracy in general, yes. "Conspiracy theory" is another thing, more specific than conspiracy.
  - thenewthotness 4y ago
    I think the implication is a bit more literal. When you conspire with someone you communicate secretly with them in order to plot and coordinate your actions. You do this by being in very close proximity to them and whispering, so close that you are sharing breath i.e. breathing together.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      investors conspire in public to take over voting power, for instance, and do so in public to attract others
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  The Congress in fact voted to go to war with Afghanistan, 420-1. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... for details.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    "Authorization for use of military force" is not a declaration of war, despite what the DC blob and their corporate media surrogates would suggest. The whole concept behind checks and balances is that the Congress would retain the power to declare war on foreign nations. Not that they would abdicate their responsibility and pass a bill that gave the executive branch unlimited, undefined warmaking powers.

kccqzy 4y ago

The tenth amendment is certainly in effect. It's just that we have an expanded definition of commerce those days.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Not just definition. By any measure, or any definition, we have massively expanded inter-state commerce these days.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Indeed. When the Supreme Court rules that 6 MJ plants, grown and consumed on a homeowner’s property, falls under the power to regulate inter-state commerce, I think some of plot has been lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

lettergram 4y ago

There's a few reasons this broke down... 1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal government. States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty. 2. The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money and enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank. 3. The 16th amendment (1913) - Federal income tax - allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time. Those three amendments, in effect, decimated the federal system and centralized power. After that, they could pass what ever they wanted. IMO the internet is re-igniting a public debate and push towards populism -- that and that's why you saw the 2008 rise of Ron Paul, Occupy Wallstreet, Tea Party, Bernie Sandars and now MAGA. (yes, it was coupled with a financial crisis, but the government response led to push back).

bitwize 4y ago
Name the fucking enemy. Starts with a 'C' and ends in 'apitalism'. Read Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work. This is the way.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  I fully agree with lettergram and disagree with naming capitalism as an 'enemy'. How do you think you're going to reduce poverty and create wealth without capitalism?
  - pasquinelli 4y ago
    the ussr and china both developed from feudalism without capitalism and lifted a huge number of people out of poverty. not advocating their system, (not not-advocating either), but they are counter examples.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      hmmm arguably capitalism was still required. Both the USSR and China both went through (at different times!) great famines due to their collectivization of agriculture. Further, their agricultural practices in general were learned from the capitalist countries and neither produced / produce enough. Both the USSR and China did / currently rely heavily on food imports. Arguably, they only escaped feudalism because capitalistic countries provided enough cheap food to the global market to transition their economies off of mass labor in fields (the basis of feudalism).