7 ms·

While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree, the general spirit of the Constitution has been severe

by crusso 14y ago

While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree, the general spirit of the Constitution has been severely eroded and is being destroyed. The beauty of the Constitution was that it limited the powers of the Federal Government, allowing people to make more decisions for themselves at the individual, local, and state levels. One needs only to look at the legislative and judicial history to see that the Tenth Amendment has been largely nullified in favor of increasing Federal power. One needs only to look at the budget of the Federal government which is up around 24% of the GDP to realize that it is rather unconstrained by the narrow scope of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was a good idea, but the best set of rules in the world can't constrain people who refuse to live by them.

Retric 14y ago
Arguably the interpretation of the Constitution has changed little. It's society that's has changed. Consider, the impact of actually having cars vs people walking and the amount of constitutional protection when doing each. Cellphones and Credit cards can be traced. Email made it practical for large scale mail interception. Even just the amount of interstate commerce is so radically altered that virtually every transaction crosses state boarders. EX: Used a credit card to buy local grain, that now involves multiple states.
rayiner 14y ago
> While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree If by "some segments" you 95% of the population who isn't a white, male, landowner. > The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. This is middle school civics drivel. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. The federal government we have today is based on a reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause, which was always intended to be a very broad power and was a key piece of what the federalists wanted out of the new constitution. All that's happened since then is that we've gone from being largely self-sufficient farmers to people who even argue with each other over channels of interstate commerce.
- crusso 14y ago
  This is middle school civics drivel. Nice... so now text book writers aren't quite liberal enough in their slant of America's history. Glad you know better than the academics who've studied the subject. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. I'll grant you that the Federalists had the momentum when the Constitution was written, but why do you think the Articles of Confederation were implemented in the first place? It's because the Founding Fathers erred on the side of an extremely weak Federal government. It was so weak that it couldn't really function, so the Federalists gained the upper hand in drafting the next version. Even then, it wasn't intended for the Federal government to completely overrule the states using the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has been totally perverted to mean pretty much anything that Congress has wanted it to mean. It's a damned shame.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Nice... so now text book writers aren't quite liberal enough in their slant of America's history. Glad you know better than the academics who've studied the subject. It's not a liberal versus conservative distinction. It's a "history" versus "historical revisionism" distinction. > but why do you think the Articles of Confederation were implemented in the first place? Because at the time of the founding, the political power lay with the states who had no desire to give it up. > Even then, it wasn't intended for the Federal government to completely overrule the states using the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has been totally perverted to mean pretty much anything that Congress has wanted it to mean. The Commerce clause means very close to what it meant almost 200 years ago when it was first interpreted in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). "This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said, that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants, expressly, the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used, is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the constitution, which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it." 187-188. "The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." 189-190. "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution. These are expressed in plain terms, and do not affect the questions which arise in this case, or which have been discussed at the bar. If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States." 196-197. What the federalists wanted was for the federal government to have broad powers to regulate commercial intercourse (Justice Marshall was a federalist). What happened from 1824 to 2013 is that nearly everything became the subject of an inter-state commercial transaction. Your average American in 1824 could go weeks without engaging in interstate commercial transactions. Today, you do it every time you check e-mail on your smartphone or buy a snickers from the vending machine with a credit card. The interpretation of the Commerce Clause today is not "perverted." It means more or less what it always has--accounting for Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons cementing the Federalist rather than anti-Federalist interpretation of the Clause. A staunch Federalist from 1820 would not be surprised by say Rehnquist-era or Roberts-era interpretations of the Commerce Clause. What's changed is that the nature of society has changed dramatically such that the broad power delegated to Congress in the Commerce Clause, read faithfully, encompasses far more human activity than it did at the time of the founding.

by crusso 14y ago

Retric 14y ago

Arguably the interpretation of the Constitution has changed little. It's society that's has changed. Consider, the impact of actually having cars vs people walking and the amount of constitutional protection when doing each. Cellphones and Credit cards can be traced. Email made it practical for large scale mail interception. Even just the amount of interstate commerce is so radically altered that virtually every transaction crosses state boarders. EX: Used a credit card to buy local grain, that now involves multiple states.

rayiner 14y ago

> While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree If by "some segments" you 95% of the population who isn't a white, male, landowner. > The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. This is middle school civics drivel. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. The federal government we have today is based on a reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause, which was always intended to be a very broad power and was a key piece of what the federalists wanted out of the new constitution. All that's happened since then is that we've gone from being largely self-sufficient farmers to people who even argue with each other over channels of interstate commerce.

crusso 14y ago
This is middle school civics drivel. Nice... so now text book writers aren't quite liberal enough in their slant of America's history. Glad you know better than the academics who've studied the subject. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. I'll grant you that the Federalists had the momentum when the Constitution was written, but why do you think the Articles of Confederation were implemented in the first place? It's because the Founding Fathers erred on the side of an extremely weak Federal government. It was so weak that it couldn't really function, so the Federalists gained the upper hand in drafting the next version. Even then, it wasn't intended for the Federal government to completely overrule the states using the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has been totally perverted to mean pretty much anything that Congress has wanted it to mean. It's a damned shame.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Nice... so now text book writers aren't quite liberal enough in their slant of America's history. Glad you know better than the academics who've studied the subject. It's not a liberal versus conservative distinction. It's a "history" versus "historical revisionism" distinction. > but why do you think the Articles of Confederation were implemented in the first place? Because at the time of the founding, the political power lay with the states who had no desire to give it up. > Even then, it wasn't intended for the Federal government to completely overrule the states using the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause has been totally perverted to mean pretty much anything that Congress has wanted it to mean. The Commerce clause means very close to what it meant almost 200 years ago when it was first interpreted in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). "This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said, that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants, expressly, the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used, is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the constitution, which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it." 187-188. "The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." 189-190. "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution. These are expressed in plain terms, and do not affect the questions which arise in this case, or which have been discussed at the bar. If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States." 196-197. What the federalists wanted was for the federal government to have broad powers to regulate commercial intercourse (Justice Marshall was a federalist). What happened from 1824 to 2013 is that nearly everything became the subject of an inter-state commercial transaction. Your average American in 1824 could go weeks without engaging in interstate commercial transactions. Today, you do it every time you check e-mail on your smartphone or buy a snickers from the vending machine with a credit card. The interpretation of the Commerce Clause today is not "perverted." It means more or less what it always has--accounting for Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons cementing the Federalist rather than anti-Federalist interpretation of the Clause. A staunch Federalist from 1820 would not be surprised by say Rehnquist-era or Roberts-era interpretations of the Commerce Clause. What's changed is that the nature of society has changed dramatically such that the broad power delegated to Congress in the Commerce Clause, read faithfully, encompasses far more human activity than it did at the time of the founding.