LOL

Well, I'm actually reading the constitution but if you "believe" it says something different, well fuck me, I concede : )

No. Article I Section 8 specifically mentions army and navy.

@Abge - No need to be a smart ass. I said I could be wrong when I pointed out the USAF isn't even a stretch considering they were once part of the army anyhow.

I'm sorry, but you must admit, not even bothering to read the section I'm referring is a bit lazy.

You must admit, if it's true that the constitution needs to be followed to the letter, and only navy and army are mentioned, it seems odd we have an air force.

Isn't the Constitution at its heart a document concerning power, specifically the power vested in a government? To say that the Consitution is outdated means that the ideas of government power contained in it no longer exist. This seems an unsupportable point. We claim to live in a democracy and proudly trace the roots of democracy to anicent Athens and Solon, Cleisthenes, Pericles, the archons, the right to equality before the Archons, political participation in the Council of 400, the Council of 500, the ideas of federalism and local government contained in the concept of the Demes, and the outlawing of debt slavery. We see these as timeless concept, but the Constitutions attitudes towards government power, checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism are out of date?

I'm on a fucking phone! What do you me to do? Max out my fucking data plan to pull down and read the whole document when you didn't even.mention the exact fucking section? Christ you can back an Asshole at times.

@Draug

Why so angry? I lol'd and : ) in my post. Calm down.

You called me lazy and had no such smiley or LOL in it. Fuck off!

If you weren't a fucking mod i would have muted you long ago. I am not lazy. i am.on a device that males it difficult to do what you called me.lazy for not doing.

If the constitution maxes out your data plan, I question how you're still perusing the forums.

Makes not males

You're a bit of a grump tonight.

Do you have something to contribute or are you just here to yell?

Not only does Article I Section 8 mention only army and navy, it *specifically* mentions Land and Water. No mention of air.

If "provide for the common defense" truly is limited to what is directly stated in the following items, we have no business having an air force.

The point, dub, is that i am on a phone. Try reading a lengthy document on a phone. And regardless. The history of the air force is that it used to be the army air corps. if it ever became an issue, it would get folded back into the army and the issue be resolved.

It's not to say the entire constitution is completely out of date in every way. We need to take it point by point. And the idea that any kind of government structure can be timeless is a nonsense. Governance is a socially constructed concept. As society changes, and the concepts it constructs change with it, we need to reevaluate things.

Also the idea that the constitution only provides the broad strokes is pretty misleading as well. The constitution definitely provides for specific policies while prohibiting others, and the meaning of those provisions and prohibitions have certainly changed over time already.

Fine. then we should have never formed a decision of the army called the army air corps.

Division not decision

@Emac

Who are you addressing?

And the coast guard shouldn't exist either. it is part of the Justice department or was when it was formed.

Again, if the constitution is lengthy, I question how you're still perusing the forums. They get rather lengthy themselves.

Sorry Transportation department. my bad.

I said try to read it on a phone. The forums havevheir challenges but one thread at a time works.

@Draug

"To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

If this line must be followed to the letter, then every federal military plan is unconstitutional.

*military plane

"We see these as timeless concept, but the Constitutions attitudes towards government power, checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism are out of date?"

Yes. Separation of powers & federalism are unworkable, recipes for gridlock. They cannot function in a modern government.

" suppose for you, it's mob rule and anything foes, right? Please explain upon WHAT we should found our laws if it is not upon the founding document?"

Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Agreed. And I am not the one going against the idea youbpropse. However, it should be noted that the amendments supersede the original articles and the later then amendment, the greater the legal bearing it has. So which comes first? Article 1 Section 8 or the 10th amendment? Hint, it is the one with the word Amendment. The 10th amendment supersedes the vagaries of Article 1 and enumerated them so that general welfare and common defense are no longer vague terms but clearly spelled out and limits the federal.government.

Abgemacht, I avoid Gotcha posts. Random comments motivated that post. I don't like to post at people. I'm interested in ideas. I think a lot of discussion about particular clauses in this thread ignores the historical context that is still relavent. Take for example copyright. The industrial revolution was reaching the colonies in the 1750's as goods from British factories were sold by colonial merchants. Ben Franklin, the most famous American at the time, was applauded as an inventor. Whenever the founding fathers added the protection for copyright I believe they did so pursposefully to protect intellectual property and physical inventions, because they believed if they didn't that a lack of protection would stunt progress. I also think that their ideas about copyright and patent differ distinctly from the 75 year copyright legislated a decade ago. Yet the founding fathers created a process to update copyright so they recongized also that times could change with basic concepts, copyrights, remaining intact.

abgemacht, I think there's a problem with this:

---
2) You're wrong. AIS8 clearly states "...provide for the common Defense ***and promote general Welfare*** of the United States..."

Note the word "provide". Taxing ins't providing. The Constitution clearly states that congress is allowed to spend money for the general Welfare.
---

The phrasing is "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the United States." It does not mean "to provide the general welfare," only "to promote" it, which, if we're going to be technical with the wording, in my mind would mean creating an environment FAVORABLE to whatever policy goal is sought with the general welfare clause, but NOT taking the additional step of actively PROVIDING the thing in question.

@Draug

This is what the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Honestly, this isn't too helpful. What does "delegated to the US" actually mean?

Is "provide for the general welfare" the delegation? Or, is "to establish post offices and post roads" the delegation? If the former, then 10th Amendment isn't relevant. If the later, then why do we have an air force?

The whole constitution was written with the idea of it being a living document. But you have to make an amendment if you want to change it and it has to be ratified by the states. As it stands, the 10th amendment override all vagaries in the articles and strips lot of power from the federal government that Obama wants back. Well, he needs to get an amendment passed that declares him.king and get the states to sign off on it.

@PE

"promote" could mean anything. The NSF most certainly "promotes" the general welfare. What does "creating environment favorable to whatever policy goal is sought" mean?