-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Constitution Redux... further musings
Author: BobR
Date: 02/27/2008 13:31:38
Last Saturday, TriSec posted a muse on the U.S. Constitution. I'd like to provide a "part II", and continue along the same lines, discussing some bits that I find interesting as well.
From Article 1, Section 8:
This sounds to me that Congress is given most of the foreign relations power. Yet we seem to often expect that power to reside in the presidency. In fact, the whole "foreign policy" experience issue seems to be the number one talking point this election cycle, even though the President is not granted any specific powers in that area.
Again, from Article 1, Section 8:
So the Congress is granted the power to raise an army and maintain a navy. To me it seems pretty clear that maintaining an army is unconstitutional. It also points out that Congress needs to redo the spending bills for the military at least every two years, so it's in their power to keep that from spiraling out of control. They certainly haven't done much of that controlling over the last 7 years.
Once more from Article 1, Section 8:
Compare that to the 2nd Amendment:
It seems to be even more clear that the whole "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment is key to this. This is NOT a blanket "everyone can own a gun" declaration; it is clearly a description of our modern National Guard, with the idea that the Guard would provide for the defense of the country, and would defend the people from the government should the need arise.
Finally, apropos of another important news item, from Article 1, Section 9:
"ex post facto Law" means any retroactive law, such as say - granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms? Once again the Bush Administration and its cronies are pushing for a law that is patently unconstitutional.
Despite being 200 yrs old, the U.S. Constitution is an amazing document, and despite the anachronistic linguistic stylings and verbiage, is not that hard to read and comprehend. I recommend it to everyone.
From Article 1, Section 8:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations...
Again, from Article 1, Section 8:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
Once more from Article 1, Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It seems to be even more clear that the whole "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment is key to this. This is NOT a blanket "everyone can own a gun" declaration; it is clearly a description of our modern National Guard, with the idea that the Guard would provide for the defense of the country, and would defend the people from the government should the need arise.
Finally, apropos of another important news item, from Article 1, Section 9:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
"ex post facto Law" means any retroactive law, such as say - granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms? Once again the Bush Administration and its cronies are pushing for a law that is patently unconstitutional.
Despite being 200 yrs old, the U.S. Constitution is an amazing document, and despite the anachronistic linguistic stylings and verbiage, is not that hard to read and comprehend. I recommend it to everyone.
