My Platform: If I Run

[Didymus]

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this countries economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.


That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?

 

[WillypHD]

Thank you for laying that out for us but i do not believe you can be successful with the stated goals because they are not realistic at all. I do not believe you have a firm understanding of what it would take to accomplish the things you are saying you will do. That being said if you were to say that you would do those things, you would not be able to deliver and would look like either a liar, or incapable of doing the job. I feel as though you need to re-think your goals and try to come up with some more realistic goals to achieve, ones that are very specific and can be viewed as real and possible solutions to problems.

 

[JooseBox]

I believe Slick Willy is correct. As admirable as I find that agenda it could never be accomplished in anything less than a few decades (kinda like Barry's Healthcare agenda). It would simply be political suicide just to mention those things out loud bro. Perhaps when we REALLY hit rock bottom enough folks will be awake and subsequently onboard with the federal government gettin-back-to-basics that even the media wouldn't dare spin or demonize your platform.

 

[David]

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this countries economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

It falls under 'General Welfare'.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

And the IRS is the agency that enforces the taxes. It's no more unconstitutional then the FBI.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

See above. Though it should be nationalized.

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

Can you point that part out for clarity?

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

Ironically, unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court can judge Constitutionality.

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

States can't override Fed law. The only way around this would be declaring the laws unconstitutional or issuing an Execrative Order. as president that 2nd option is open to you but you'll be passing so many EOs that you'll get drummed out of office for ruling by decree.


That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?

You're even less likely to get elected then Palin.

 

[WillypHD]

Just to clarify, the constitution says that it will "promote the general welfare" the key word here being promote. It does not say it will provide the general welfare, which is currently what the federal government does for many Americans.

 

[David]

Just to clarify, the constitution says that it will "promote the general welfare" the key word here being promote. It does not say it will provide the general welfare, which is currently what the federal government does for many Americans.

As in advance. Sort of like President Carter promotes and end to homelessness... By building houses. Words have more then 1 meaning, keep things in context.

 

[obtuseobserver]

David: You've got your issues and proposed remedies so jumbled up that I'll do my best to respond to what you may have been trying to get at.


1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

It falls under 'General Welfare'.

Education as a general matter is left not only to states but to local jurisdictions. While "general welfare" may give a vague basis for the spending there is zero constitutional mandate for this agency. Eliminating it would make many Americans unhappy, excepting people employed by the DoE

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

And the IRS is the agency that enforces the taxes. It's no more unconstitutional then the FBI.

The IRS is just one more bureacracy. The bigger problem is that the 16th amendment authorized income taxation.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

See above. Though it should be nationalized.

See above? You missed by a wide margin above. The reason income taxes fly is an amendment. There is no amendment for the FED. Its status as a quasi-governmental body is much more a result of consent of government and a lack of citizen standing to challenge it.


6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

Ironically, unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court can judge Constitutionality.

Ironically? Quit trying to explain the law or the constitution. Your fund of knowledge on both is overdrawn. Each branch has a swipe at deciding the constitutionality of a law. SCOTUS actually has the very LEAST constitutional authority to decide the constitutionality of a law and then only because it decided to give itself that authority. Congress should do exactly as described in pt. 6. However, they long ago abdicated that duty. It should be reimposed. Just to complete the point, SCOTUS cannot compel the Executive branch to enforce a law. If the President believes it to be unconstitutional be can disregard the law. If the President feels the law is constitutional he still doesn't have to enforce it. Its called prosecutorial discretion. There exist limited resources. That being true the President gets to pick and choose how to allocate them to enforce the law.


7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

States can't override Fed law. The only way around this would be declaring the laws unconstitutional or issuing an Execrative Order. as president that 2nd option is open to you but you'll be passing so many EOs that you'll get drummed out of office for ruling by decree.

It would appear much more likely that he is referring to laws passed by states only after the federal government threatened to withhold funds the states had become reliant upon. See South Dakota v Dole. In breif and because you've never heard of either the case or the mechanism.... Sec of Transportation Elizabeth Dole told the states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21. States said no. ED said, "OK. No federal highway funds until you do." She won. States lost. The method has been used on a wider variety of issues since.

The President cannot issue an EO abolishing a state law.

States cannot declare a federal law unconstitutional.

Drummed out of office. No. Impeachment can occur only by Bill from the House. Immpeachable offenses are (treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors - see art.2 sec. 4). Executive orders are constitutional. So, as much as Congress may dislike them they do not constitute an impeachable offense.

Voters theoretically could vote one out for lots of EOs but we've seen precious little evidence of the electorate's willingness to do so. This is a technical point they wouldn't care about

 

[obtuseobserver]

Just to clarify, the constitution says that it will "promote the general welfare" the key word here being promote. It does not say it will provide the general welfare, which is currently what the federal government does for many Americans.

and leftists belieeve it says.

they are wrong

they also think "separation of church and state" is in there

they are wrong about that too

on and on

you do know that the constitution is a living document that says what they want it to say to support whatever policy ends they like...

 

[Didymus]

David wrote:

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

Can you point that part out for clarity?

David,

Obtuseobserver did a great job at answering all of your points, but left me with this one. Thanks Ob. I appreciate it.

The answer to you quiry about point 5 is in Article I, Section 10, 1st Paragraph of the U.S. Constitution which states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and Silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ................" This section of the Constitution plainly states that States may only use gold and silver Coins as legal tender.

I've been in this conversation before. In Knox v. Lee, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not forbid the Federal Government to print paper money. However, that being said, the Constitution does prohibit States from using paper money as tender.

 

[David]

The answer to you quiry about point 5 is in Article I, Section 10, 1st Paragraph of the U.S. Constitution which states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and Silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ................" This section of the Constitution plainly states that States may only use gold and silver Coins as legal tender.

I've been in this conversation before. In Knox v. Lee, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not forbid the Federal Government to print paper money. However, that being said, the Constitution does prohibit States from using paper money as tender.

Okay, I wasn't doubting you I just don't have the Constitution memorized word for word. I'd also like to point out the Air Force is unconstitutional as well. The Constitution only allows for an army, navy and militia.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I have no background in this stuff so these comments are off the cuff...

That provision appears to deny the right of states to issue bank notes.

The establishment of the first and second bank of the US were very controversial in terms of public support and constitutional footing.

A return to the gold standard presents many problems. So does remaining with fiat currency and we are seeing exactly why right now. IMO, the solution isn't a return to the gold standard but a method of monitoring the issuance of currency in order to prevent cheating. The shape this would take? Above my pay grade.

Just because and thanks to myp: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=17084&postcount=1

 

[obtuseobserver]

Okay, I wasn't doubting you I just don't have the Constitution memorized word for word. I'd also like to point out the Air Force is unconstitutional as well. The Constitution only allows for an army, navy and militia.

Here you go. The interwebs. Its gots lots of stuff.

US Constitution

 

[Didymus]

Okay, I wasn't doubting you I just don't have the Constitution memorized word for word. I'd also like to point out the Air Force is unconstitutional as well. The Constitution only allows for an army, navy and militia.

You're in good company. There's no evidence that Barack Obama has the Constitution memorized either. Of course, I don't either. So, we're all in good company. So if Barack Obama is qualified to be President, anybody is. However, there are those of us who care about the Constitution, and would keep the oath of office, unlike recent Presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

To your point about the Air Force. There were no airplanes in the sky, so why would they conceive of an Air Force. But, Congress is authorized to "provide the common defense." They are authorized to keep a military. The Air Force is nothing but the military of the air.

The key points of determining Constitionality are what is authorized, and what is prohibited. However, because of progress there are a number of issues that are not even mentioned in the Constitution. How are they to be dealt with? A strict constructionist would probably say, not mentioned means it is prohibited. The living document people would say "silence gives license." That simply means since it is not prohibited, then Congress is free to do as they wish.

The strict constructionist would say as you did, that an Air Force is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not authorize the use of an Air Force. The growing document people would use the explanation I gave you. For the sake of discussion, which one of us is right?

Thank you for this oportunity. Next to the Bible, I love discussing the Constitution.

If you go here: http://volokh.com/posts/1170032632.shtml
you will see a bit on the two positions on the Constitutionality of the Air Force. It uses different terminology, but it is pretty much what I explained.

:help: - in the discussion

 

[David]

You're in good company. There's no evidence that Barack Obama has the Constitution memorized either. Of course, I don't either. So, we're all in good company. So if Barack Obama is qualified to be President, anybody is. However, there are those of us who care about the Constitution, and would keep the oath of office, unlike recent Presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

To your point about the Air Force. There were no airplanes in the sky, so why would they conceive of an Air Force. But, Congress is authorized to "provide the common defense." They are authorized to keep a military. The Air Force is nothing but the military of the air.

The key points of determining Constitionality are what is authorized, and what is prohibited. However, because of progress there are a number of issues that are not even mentioned in the Constitution. How are they to be dealt with? A strict constructionist would probably say, not mentioned means it is prohibited. The living document people would say "silence gives license." That simply means since it is not prohibited, then Congress is free to do as they wish.

The strict constructionist would say as you did, that an Air Force is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not authorize the use of an Air Force. The growing document people would use the explanation I gave you. For the sake of discussion, which one of us is right?

Thank you for this oportunity. Next to the Bible, I love discussing the Constitution.

If you go here: http://volokh.com/posts/1170032632.shtml
you will see a bit on the two positions on the Constitutionality of the Air Force. It uses different terminology, but it is pretty much what I explained.

:help: - in the discussion

I'm a literalist when it comes to Constitutional law. Changes do happen, that's why they allowed for amendments. If you want to have this debate, why not start a new thread?

 

[obtuseobserver]

I'm a literalist when it comes to Constitutional law. Changes do happen, that's why they allowed for amendments. If you want to have this debate, why not start a new thread?

The word you're really looking for is contructionist but you're not. You're a cherry picker. (FTR... strict constructionism and originalism are not synonymous. For my part I regard them as potentially complimentary but necessarily so. What do I mean. Originalism is really only useful when operating tabula rasa. Even after 200 years of case law there are many areas to apply originalism. Second Amendment juris prudence being a decent current example. Constructionism, imo, tries to hew to an originalist intent though accepting stare decisis when such precedents are not offensive to original intent. As you noted, we have ways of changing what the constitutions says - and means - and that is by amendment not by judge)

You claim that the air force is unconstitutional because "air force" appears nowhere in the document.

However, you then "general welfare" to justify the department of education.

So, you've applied a very strict constructionist view in case one that doesn't really hold up to actual legal scrutiny and in the second offered a thin reed of constitutional support. To claim a perspective from which you "interpret" the constitution it needs, necessarily, to be consistent. Your perspective is not consistent in that post nor in this thread.

On the General Welfare clause, Jefferson had this to say, " “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” Which is to say that the department of education has flimsy constitutional support.

 

[obtuseobserver]

To your point about the Air Force. There were no airplanes in the sky, so why would they conceive of an Air Force. But, Congress is authorized to "provide the common defense." They are authorized to keep a military. The Air Force is nothing but the military of the air.

And just to add a historical point. The use of airplanes predates the Air Force. The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard (let us not forget them) all had air divisions (and still do) prior to splitting off an independent Air Force.

The strict constructionist would say as you did, that an Air Force is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not authorize the use of an Air Force. The growing document people would use the explanation I gave you. For the sake of discussion, which one of us is right?

The strict constructionist would regard the Air Force as necessary for the general welfare of the state in so far as failing to provide for the common defense through defending the air would fail to properly defend the state... one of its clear duties.

 

[Didymus]

And just to add a historical point. The use of airplanes predates the Air Force. The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard (let us not forget them) all had air divisions (and still do) prior to splitting off an independent Air Force.

The strict constructionist would regard the Air Force as necessary for the general welfare of the state in so far as failing to provide for the common defense through defending the air would fail to properly defend the state... one of its clear duties.

That might be true. On the other hand, the Constitution specifically mentions "Armies," "Navy," and "Militia." Wouldn't a strict constructionist also consider that?

I would consider myself a strict constructionist for what is written, but a growing document person where nothing is written.

 

[obtuseobserver]

That might be true. On the other hand, the Constitution specifically mentions "Armies," "Navy," and "Militia." Wouldn't a strict constructionist also consider that?

Certainly an originalist would. A constructionist probably. But, having done zero real legal research on the issue I doubt very much that a constitutional challenge to the existence of the Air Force would succeed even if we ignored the issue of standing. I don't think any court would entertain such a challenge as meritorious.

I would consider myself a strict constructionist for what is written, but a growing document person where nothing is written.

Growing document?

The most conservative approach to constitutional interpretation would be originalism. One could argue that originalists will reject all precedent they feel out of step with the original intent of the framers.

Constructionists accept precedent except where they feel the law has grown well beyond anything justifiable by the text... it has wiggle room. It acknowledges stare decisis excepting the outlier decision. (Roe could well be argued to be an example of that).

When interpretting areas of law as yet untouched the well established method is originalism. The reason is exactly as David pointed out, we have an established process for changing the constitution. Large alterations in meaning of the text offend that process. The best example leaping to mind is the Kelo decision where the takings clause was expanded greatly by changing the notion of "public use" to include the government exercising its right of eminent domain to take private property in order to give it to another private party.

 

[Didymus]

I understand what your saying Ob, but here is my problem.

The originalist would probably say that what the Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits is left to the States, based on the 10th Amendment. That would have to include air traffic control. Imagine air traffic control having 50 sets of rules to follow. Pennsylvania could have Jet A flying at 5000 feet, and Ohio having the same Jet A flying at 4000 feet. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has Jet B at 4000 feet, while Ohio has Jet B at 5000 feet. Do you see what a mess that would be? This is one case where one size is better fitting all.

- 4000 feet in Pa, 5000 feet in Ohio, 4500 feet in Indiana, and I'm drunk.

 

[David]

I understand what your saying Ob, but here is my problem.

The originalist would probably say that what the Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits is left to the States, based on the 10th Amendment. That would have to include air traffic control. Imagine air traffic control having 50 sets of rules to follow. Pennsylvania could have Jet A flying at 5000 feet, and Ohio having the same Jet A flying at 4000 feet. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has Jet B at 4000 feet, while Ohio has Jet B at 5000 feet. Do you see what a mess that would be? This is one case where one size is better fitting all.

- 4000 feet in Pa, 5000 feet in Ohio, 4500 feet in Indiana, and I'm drunk.

You're derailing your own thread. start a constitution topic. Kind of hard to keep the line of conversation going when people aren't even talking about the same thing in a thread.