3 ms·

hmmm... Following the Constitution is Radical now... The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.

shkkmo 4y ago
Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
- krapp 4y ago
  If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.
judge2020 4y ago
I don't think they had to defend against threats from the air or space when they drafted the constitution. Nor were spies all that useful outside of wartime.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  This "well it is old document" falls on deaf ears with me. The solution on if parts of the constitution are out-dated is to pass amendments to the consititon, which has been done 27 times in our history. It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government. And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    Where are they even overstepping? They don't get involved in situations outside of their power, like defending the country and regulating interstate commerce. What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
    - prottog 4y ago
      > regulating interstate commerce The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person. > More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power You have to be kidding me. I did not think anyone would honestly make that case. Many argue about how the federal government needed to expand their power but I have never seen anyone claim they have not expanded their power at all That is new one for me, and not supported at all by the historical record, which for example was clear there needed to be a amendment passed to ban alcohol but then magically due to some very bad court rulings (like wickard) they could ban whole classes of drugs without a constitutional amendment History is VERY, VERY clear that FDR massively expanded the size, and scope of government and held the supreme court hostage forcing them rule his way after striking down many of his laws originally as unconstitutional No one that has studied American History can say with the strait face the Federal Government has not expanded its powers

shkkmo 4y ago

Yes, advocating such widespread changes to society on the basis of a specific interpretation/understanding of the constitution (the root document of our government) fits the meanings of the word almost too perfectly: > Arising from or going to a root or source; basic. >Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic. > Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions. > designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue > of or relating to the origin > favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions > Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.

krapp 4y ago
If we have to put up with mass shootings and forcing women to choose between unwanted pregnancies and prison because of specific interpretations of the Constitution based solely on 18th century idioms, then we should go all in.

judge2020 4y ago

I don't think they had to defend against threats from the air or space when they drafted the constitution. Nor were spies all that useful outside of wartime.

phpisthebest 4y ago
This "well it is old document" falls on deaf ears with me. The solution on if parts of the constitution are out-dated is to pass amendments to the consititon, which has been done 27 times in our history. It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government. And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Where are they even overstepping? They don't get involved in situations outside of their power, like defending the country and regulating interstate commerce. What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > regulating interstate commerce The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person. > More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power You have to be kidding me. I did not think anyone would honestly make that case. Many argue about how the federal government needed to expand their power but I have never seen anyone claim they have not expanded their power at all That is new one for me, and not supported at all by the historical record, which for example was clear there needed to be a amendment passed to ban alcohol but then magically due to some very bad court rulings (like wickard) they could ban whole classes of drugs without a constitutional amendment History is VERY, VERY clear that FDR massively expanded the size, and scope of government and held the supreme court hostage forcing them rule his way after striking down many of his laws originally as unconstitutional No one that has studied American History can say with the strait face the Federal Government has not expanded its powers