• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Question for the Constitionalists out there

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,423
7,157
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟422,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What part of the Constitution explicity authorizes the federal government to involve itself in the mitigation or remediation of a natural disaster, or an industrial accident? Let's assume we're not dealing with an act of war, or damage confined only to federal property.
 

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟27,415.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
*picks up handy-dandy copy of the constitution* (I always carry one, I like to hit silly people over the head with it)

Off the top of my head, I think that the federal government is in charge of the nation's territorial waters, though that's mainly applicable for defense against, uh, pirates. Of the Ar-matey eyepatch kind.

Okay, found some stuff. Section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States... To find and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas..."

I think there is also some stuff about regulating commerce between states. As far as I can understand, when something happens that affects or takes place in more than one state or off the coast, like a hurricane or oil spill, it is the federal government's responsibility, partly because a single concentrated effort would be better than several smaller efforts, partly because the state may have too much to handle or their governing body may be disorganized after the catastrophe.

So no, not explicitly. But they didn't have oil spills when the Constitution was written. What we really need is a new constitutional congress to write a new one. These laws weren't meant to last us two hundred years, they were supposed to be changed--amended--as needed. And they really haven't been.
 
Upvote 0

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
the "general welfare" clause has been abused to the point that it can be used to justify anything at this point. No, I do not like it being abused. The modern idea of a gumby Constitution ignores the principles this nation was founded upon.
 
Upvote 0

GodGunsAndGlory

Regular Member
Jan 4, 2008
1,442
55
34
✟24,384.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
What part of the Constitution explicity authorizes the federal government to involve itself in the mitigation or remediation of a natural disaster, or an industrial accident? Let's assume we're not dealing with an act of war, or damage confined only to federal property.

Protection of Life and Property.

So hard.
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟29,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
the "general welfare" clause has been abused to the point that it can be used to justify anything at this point. No, I do not like it being abused. The modern idea of a gumby Constitution ignores the principles this nation was founded upon.

And why should we care what a bunch of long dead people's principles were?

But if we are going to be concerned with a bunch of muldering dead people:

Every generation needs a new revolution. -Thomas Jefferson
 
Upvote 0

allhart

Messianic believer
Feb 24, 2007
7,543
231
54
Turlock, CA
✟31,377.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And why should we care what a bunch of long dead people's principles were?

But if we are going to be concerned with a bunch of muldering dead people:

Every generation needs a new revolution. -Thomas Jefferson
Like we are smarter than our forefathers:doh:........and does it go against Declaration of Independence?
 
Upvote 0

allhart

Messianic believer
Feb 24, 2007
7,543
231
54
Turlock, CA
✟31,377.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Declaration of Independence

when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟29,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Like we are smarter than our forefathers:doh:

Why wouldn't we be?

Anyway, what did they know about a 21st century industrial society?

Answer: zero.

And we live in a 21st century industrial society and not an 18th century agricultural society.

........and does it go against Declaration of Independence?

It is nice to see you've mastered the cut and paste function, but really, could you explain your point?

Seriously, why do people keep thinking that something about living in 1776 or 1789 made people smart?
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟29,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They knew what we are now facing. They were facing it. They wrote wour founding documents to protect us from the tyrrany we are now facing. They knew what they were talking about.

And what do you base this on beyond years of indoctrinated patriotism from the school system?
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
the "general welfare" clause has been abused to the point that it can be used to justify anything at this point. No, I do not like it being abused. The modern idea of a gumby Constitution ignores the principles this nation was founded upon.


When you use words like 'general welfare', you have to be blind to not see the potential abuse. And the problem is, I'm not sure all the uses are even abuses. 'General welfare' is so weasel wordy that you don't even need to abuse it to use it for almost any purpose you find worth focusing on.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,586
350
36
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
They knew what we are now facing. They were facing it. They wrote wour founding documents to protect us from the tyrrany we are now facing. They knew what they were talking about.

I'm really doubtful they had a clue of the difference between civilian and military technology/firepower. The mere concept of an Air Force was probably not well envisioned if at all.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They knew what we are now facing. They were facing it. They wrote wour founding documents to protect us from the tyrrany we are now facing. They knew what they were talking about.

Oh pleasseeee... you use the word 'tyranny' so loosely that I could imagine you'd call a parking ticket an out-right tyranny.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,423
7,157
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟422,546.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Protection of Life and Property.

So hard.


Where is protection of life and property enumerated as a power of Congress? Other than the 5th and 14th Amendments (which limit government action) where is life and property even mentioned?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
41,815
19,835
Finger Lakes
✟307,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They knew what we are now facing. They were facing it. They wrote wour founding documents to protect us from the tyrrany we are now facing. They knew what they were talking about.
We have armed soldiers quartered in our houses? We have a king and a Parliament with no direct representation? Has our Congress been repeated dissolved or has it been compelled to meet anywhere other than Washington DC? Do we not have an independent Judiciary? Do we not have trial by jury? Are we not allowed to trade with foreign nations?

We are not facing what they faced.
 
Upvote 0

Toot La-Rue

When it rains, it - well, rains...
Apr 23, 2010
1,231
1,535
You are where you are
✟7,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why wouldn't we be?

Anyway, what did they know about a 21st century industrial society?

Answer: zero.

And we live in a 21st century industrial society and not an 18th century agricultural society.

It is nice to see you've mastered the cut and paste function, but really, could you explain your point?

Seriously, why do people keep thinking that something about living in 1776 or 1789 made people smart?
Well, what makes you think they were stupid - just cuz they're "old" and dead? Non-sequitur.

The Constitution is fundamentally a set of PRINCIPLES - principles that apply to whatever generation exists - it could apply equally as well to a 21st century BC society as it does to a 21st century AD society - because it's principle-based.

Frankly, while our technology is vastly different than when they drafted the Constitution, human nature hasn't changed one iota since. Nor does human nature change. Knowledge doesn't change it, tradition, "enlightenment," reason, experience, education, religion - NOTHING changes fundamental human nature.

It was THAT that the Constitution addressed as it did. Knowing human nature as they did was the overarching principle on which they constructed our Constitution. Having cell phones, computers, oil wells, airplanes, solar panels, nuclear reactors, ATM machines, ball-point pens, and PDAs that the founders didn't have is a patently ridiculous reason to claim we're somehow "smarter" than the founders.
 
Upvote 0

Toot La-Rue

When it rains, it - well, rains...
Apr 23, 2010
1,231
1,535
You are where you are
✟7,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you use words like 'general welfare', you have to be blind to not see the potential abuse. And the problem is, I'm not sure all the uses are even abuses. 'General welfare' is so weasel wordy that you don't even need to abuse it to use it for almost any purpose you find worth focusing on.
I think that was Mont's point - in any case I agree as well. "General Welfare" was never intended to mean anything other than what those specifics that followed in article 8 defined general welfare to mean.

Indeed, that wording was hotly debated when drafted, those opposing such wording foresaw the abuses of it to virtually unlimited powers by the federal government if allowed. Unfortunately, James Madison's argument (Federalist #41) prevailed and so we've seen what those opposed to the use of "general welfeare" feared actually transpire.
 
Upvote 0

MattLangley

Newbie
Sep 8, 2006
644
32
Las Vegas, NV
✟23,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
the "general welfare" clause has been abused to the point that it can be used to justify anything at this point. No, I do not like it being abused. The modern idea of a gumby Constitution ignores the principles this nation was founded upon.

You think it's being over used to justify too much so it can't justify anything, that doesn't make any sense... You want to ignore part of our Constitution apparently? Just because you don't like the interpretation of others of it.

Your right, we were founded on religious freedom and being a melting pot of cultures with loose immigration, that is how most of our ancestors got here.

Wait many conservative Christians don't want to remove In God We Trust and want to keep any existing religious government and national influence and many conservatives Christians don't want to return immigration to the looseness we were founded upon... ;) So you want to not return to the nation we were founded as and the principles we were founded on and supported, but you do. So confusing.
 
Upvote 0

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟27,415.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Constitution is fundamentally a set of PRINCIPLES - principles that apply to whatever generation exists - it could apply equally as well to a 21st century BC society as it does to a 21st century AD society - because it's principle-based.

No, the Constitution is a set of laws. Laws for a nation, based on principles... which do change as generations and ideas fluctuate and evolve. Even the Bill of Rights is not a set of principles, it is a set of restrictions on the power and rights of the government, insisted upon not by the founding fathers but the independent states as part of the deal under which they agreed to become a single united country. And if you think a set of laws based on a set of principles is applicable to ANY age or society, you might have enjoyed early Roman society, with their intricate republic. If not for the lions, of course.

Jefferson himself advocated changing the laws for new generations. Why should a people be enslaved to the past? We should keep the good stuff, toss the useless stuff, and fill in the blanks with relevant stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Toot La-Rue

When it rains, it - well, rains...
Apr 23, 2010
1,231
1,535
You are where you are
✟7,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, the Constitution is a set of laws. Laws for a nation, based on principles... which do change as generations and ideas fluctuate and evolve. Even the Bill of Rights is not a set of principles, it is a set of restrictions on the power and rights of the government, insisted upon not by the founding fathers but the independent states as part of the deal under which they agreed to become a single united country. And if you think a set of laws based on a set of principles is applicable to ANY age or society, you might have enjoyed early Roman society, with their intricate republic. If not for the lions, of course.
< heavy sigh > Ok, yes, the Constitution is a set of laws. I really didn't say it wasn't - what I said was that it was fundamentally a set of principles - and as you say "laws for a nation, based on principles." No need to be picking apart either statement, they're both accurate. My reason for the emphasis on principles was specifically to refute what another member posted, wherein the implication was put forth that the Constitution did NOT contain, or was NOT based on principle, rather expediency - expediency of contemporary circumstances, which is anything but principles-based.

I fail to grasp your quip about how Roman law applies to any of this however. :scratch:

Jefferson himself advocated changing the laws for new generations. Why should a people be enslaved to the past? We should keep the good stuff, toss the useless stuff, and fill in the blanks with relevant stuff.
...and the founders, knowing this, provided for such changes in the Constitution - via the amendment process.

You're right though - no generation should pass a specific law binding on all successive generations, such that later generations may not repeal such a law (as was tried in the Health Care bill recently).

But that's the very reason I addressed the notion of principles. The constitution IS fundamentally principles-based - apart from how government should be structured, and run, and what powers the federal government has to wield, the actual need to amend the constitution is rare - because what the constitution DOES say, is principally applicable to all generations.

There's no need, for example to amend the constitution merely because we have certain technology that the founding fathers didn't have - unless of course such technology (or its use/application) isn't addressed in principle by it. I'd like to know for example, what technology in 21st century America isn't addressed in principle by the Constitution? Or, what technology in 21st century America demands we amend our Constitution to accommodate?
 
Upvote 0