Question for the Constitionalists out there

[BotanicalBob]

It's a national security issue, plain and simple.

 

[NotreDame]

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?

The enumerated powers, granted by the U.S. Constitution, were rendered as necessary for the protection and preservation of life and property. Perhaps not every single enumerated power, but some of them.

 

[jayem]

The enumerated powers, granted by the U.S. Constitution, were rendered as necessary for the protection and preservation of life and property. Perhaps not every single enumerated power, but some of them.

I don't disagree, but that conclusion is reached by implication. The fact that Congress has explicit powers to punish counterfeiting and piracy, and to raise a militia to repel invasion logically implies that the federal government has an interest in protecting life and property. But it's fair to ask Constitutional textualists to explain how this inference authorizes the federal government to act as the main provider of disaster relief, rather than the government(s) of the state or states so affected.

And BTW, if it can be inferred that Congress has the power to pass laws protecting life, then why can't it pass laws ensuring access to health care? Isn't health care simply another means of protecting lives?

 

[Toot La-Rue]

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.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
2. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
3. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
4. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
5. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
6. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
7. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
8. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
9. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
10. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
11. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
12. To provide and maintain a Navy;
13. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
14. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
15. 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;
16. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
17. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No part explicitly authorizes the federal government such power.

 

[BotanicalBob]

I don't disagree, but that conclusion is reached by implication. The fact that Congress has explicit powers to punish counterfeiting and piracy, and to raise a militia to repel invasion logically implies that the federal government has an interest in protecting life and property. But it's fair to ask Constitutional textualists to explain how this inference authorizes the federal government to act as the main provider of disaster relief, rather than the government(s) of the state or states so affected.

It affects several states, which gives the fed the right to intervene. Also the whole national security issue.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't disagree, but that conclusion is reached by implication. The fact that Congress has explicit powers to punish counterfeiting and piracy, and to raise a militia to repel invasion logically implies that the federal government has an interest in protecting life and property. But it's fair to ask Constitutional textualists to explain how this inference authorizes the federal government to act as the main provider of disaster relief, rather than the government(s) of the state or states so affected.

And BTW, if it can be inferred that Congress has the power to pass laws protecting life, then why can't it pass laws ensuring access to health care? Isn't health care simply another means of protecting lives?

Well, the simple answer to your query is Congress can only pass a law to protect life pursuant to one of the enumerated powers. Protecting life is not in and of itself a grant of power to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

Now, to answer your question, Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States

I would think the sea floor, perhaps at so many feet out, is property belonging to the United States. Consequently, I think Congress may make all needful rules and regulations regarding this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, in regards to providing disaster relief in the form of money to the states, the only provision, I can think of, as a textualist, would be the general welfare clause. Of course, Madison had a very narrow view of this clause, Hamilton a more expansive view, and Monroe a middle ground.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, what makes you think they were stupid - just cuz they're "old" and dead? Non-sequitur.

In bringing up the "founding fathers" people are generally trying construct an argument from authority. So if they want to use the "founding fathers" as an authority, it is up to them to establish how they are an authority.

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.

If it is based on principles, then those principles can be expounded without appealing to the "founding fathers" and otherwise trying to construct an argument from authority.

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.

On the contrary, the whole notion of the "enlightenment" (in the sense of 18th century thought) was tht people can and do change, and for the better and history is one of progress.

If you deny human nature changes (for the better) then you are denying one of the principles that was motivating things back in the 18th century.

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.

Like I said, you a denying a key part of enlighenment thought.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

In bringing up the "founding fathers" people are generally trying construct an argument from authority. So if they want to use the "founding fathers" as an authority, it is up to them to establish how they are an authority.

If it is based on principles, then those principles can be expounded without appealing to the "founding fathers" and otherwise trying to construct an argument from authority.

Your point? Are you saying it is NOT founded on principle?

On the contrary, the whole notion of the "enlightenment" (in the sense of 18th century thought) was tht people can and do change, and for the better and history is one of progress.

If you deny human nature changes (for the better) then you are denying one of the principles that was motivating things back in the 18th century.

Like I said, you a denying a key part of enlighenment thought.

That is EXACTLY what I am denying. Human nature fundamentally CANNOT and DOES NOT change. And it was upon this principle, primarily imo, that the founding fathers drafted the Constitution - knowing human nature, its inherent weaknesses, flaws and frailties, ESPECIALLY w/r to power and the damage humans can do whence they possess it that they drafted the document upon which our government is founded - constructing it with built-in checks and balances designed to prevent the very abuses that frail humans, tempted with greed, and avarice, and lust for power they knew we would be inexorably prone to exhibit.

Technology progresses, yes; knowledge too - but history is anything if not a record of the inherent immutability of human nature.

Has the computer improved on human nature? The cell phone? Space travel? Nuclear physics? Quantum mechanics? General or Special Relativity? String Theory? Technology advances - as does human knowledge - to some artificially manufactured point of "enlightenment." Did crime stop with this "enlightenment?" Did war? Did greed? Did lust, avarice, hatred stop once we became "enlightened?"

But neither technology nor the advancement of knowledge that produces it possesses the power to change human nature. It simply cannot - it's immutable. God can change human nature - but man? The mere thought is hubris itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is EXACTLY what I am denying. Human nature fundamentally CANNOT and DOES NOT change. And it was upon this principle, primarily imo, that the founding fathers drafted the Constitution - knowing human nature, its inherent weaknesses, flaws and frailties, ESPECIALLY w/r to power and the damage humans can do whence they possess it that they drafted the document upon which our government is founded - constructing it with built-in checks and balances designed to prevent the very abuses that frail humans, tempted with greed, and avarice, and lust for power they knew we would be inexorably prone to exhibit.

Technology progresses, yes; knowledge too - but history is anything if not a record of the inherent immutability of human nature.

Has the computer improved on human nature? The cell phone? Space travel? Nuclear physics? Quantum mechanics? General or Special Relativity? String Theory? Technology advances - as does human knowledge - to some artificially manufactured point of "enlightenment." Did crime stop with this "enlightenment?" Did war? Did greed? Did lust, avarice, hatred stop once we became "enlightened?"

But neither technology nor the advancement of knowledge that produces it possesses the power to change human nature. It simply cannot - it's immutable. God can change human nature - but man? The mere thought is hubris itself.

Sartre regarded 'human nature' as a mere excuse for failing to live up to one's values. He thought it was 'bad faith' in determinism as a means of excusing oneself from bad decisions by lumping it off on some ill-defined 'human nature.'
We don't even fully know what human nature is yet, but this doesn't stop us from blaming everything we don't like about ourselves on it. Meanwhile, we reserve all the good and admirable things for ourselves, as if they didn't originate from human nature but from deep within ourselves.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

Sartre regarded 'human nature' as a mere excuse for failing to live up to one's values. He thought it was 'bad faith' in determinism as a means of excusing oneself from bad decisions by lumping it off on some ill-defined 'human nature.'
We don't even fully know what human nature is yet, but this doesn't stop us from blaming everything we don't like about ourselves on it. Meanwhile, we reserve all the good and admirable things for ourselves, as if they didn't originate from human nature but from deep within ourselves.

Oh, we have a pretty good idea exactly what the human nature is like, despite what Sartre may have thought:

19 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galatians 5 (NASB)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh, we have a pretty good idea exactly what the human nature is like, despite what Sartre may have thought:

If that is human nature, then so too is kindness, humility, the drive for truth and goodness, fortitude, heroism, affection, altruism, and hospitality. You can't just lump all the things you don't like about yourself into some indiscrete category called 'human nature'. You might as well also say that all the good things that you like about yourself are also 'human nature'. But then humans wouldn't appear so noble. How could they given that they are merely propelled by human nature and nothing less? In our arrogance we reserve only that which we despise about ourselves for 'human nature' while claiming that we (not human nature) are responsible for all the good things we have done.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's a psychological trick you see. We look at ourselves and are disgusted by all the selfish and terrible things we do. To ease our guilt we pretend that they are part of some indiscrete 'human nature' that underlies our behaviour but for which we cannot be held totally accountable (i.e. 'It's not my fault. It's only human nature,' we say). For all good and noble actions, however, we pretend exactly the opposite! We pretend that these do not originate from human nature, but that we are personally responsible for them and that we therefore deserve some credit and admiration. As soon as we do something bad though, something selfish and cruel, we revert back to bad faith that it was really some 'human nature' that made us do it.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

If that is human nature, then so too is kindness, humility, the drive for truth and goodness, fortitude, heroism, affection, altruism, and hospitality. You can't just lump all the things you don't like about yourself into some indiscrete category called 'human nature'. You might as well also say that all the good things that you like about yourself are also 'human nature'. But then humans wouldn't appear so noble. How could they given that they are merely propelled by human nature and nothing less? In our arrogance we reserve only that which we despise about ourselves for 'human nature' while claiming that we (not human nature) are responsible for all the good things we have done.

Well, there is this too:

22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Galatians 5 (New American Standard version of the Bible)

 

[Toot La-Rue]

It's a psychological trick you see. We look at ourselves and are disgusted by all the selfish and terrible things we do. To ease our guilt we pretend that they are part of some indiscrete 'human nature' that underlies our behaviour but for which we cannot be held totally accountable (i.e. 'It's not my fault. It's only human nature,' we say). For all good and noble actions, however, we pretend exactly the opposite! We pretend that these do not originate from human nature, but that we are personally responsible for them and that we therefore deserve some credit and admiration. As soon as we do something bad though, something selfish and cruel, we revert back to bad faith that it was really some 'human nature' that made us do it.

Well, being an avid fan of Atlas Shrugged on numberous levels (and a non-fan on a couple) I can unequivocally state that no such John Galt as you imagine exists.

I do acknowledge that humans can improve how we behave - but within very finite limits. Every generation has those who, whether by discipline, upbringing, education, religion etc. conduct themselves at times above the rest. But such behavior itself is necessarily constrained. Even those "paragons of virtue" are afflicted with all the foibles and flaws inherent to their basic nature. No discipline or religion can eradicate the fleshly nature, nor can we alter it.

And no amount of "enlightenment" will ever change who and what we are in the flesh - and it certainly won't come through some superior vision of government. The genius of our Constitution is that it recognizes this, and those who wrote it, did so with it in mind. That was their "enlightened" contribution to the world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, being an avid fan of Atlas Shrugged on numberous levels (and a non-fan on a couple) I can unequivocally state that no such John Galt as you imagine exists.

I do acknowledge that humans can improve how we behave - but within very finite limits. Every generation has those who, whether by discipline, upbringing, education, religion etc. conduct themselves at times above the rest. But such behavior itself is necessarily constrained. Even those "paragons of virtue" are afflicted with all the foibles and flaws inherent to their basic nature. No discipline or religion can eradicate the fleshly nature, nor can we alter it.

And no amount of "enlightenment" will ever change who and what we are in the flesh - and it certainly won't come through some superior vision of government. The genius of our Constitution is that it recognizes this, and those who wrote it, did so with it in mind. That was their "enlightened" contribution to the world.

But what is to say that their 'enlightened contribution' was nothing more than a manifestation of the finer aspects of human nature? What is to say that it is not in our nature to be enlightened or to seek enlightenment, or to do good and become neighbours in a truly deep sense? As I said before, we play a cruel trick on ourselves when we relegate all that we despise about our behaviour into unaccountable 'human nature', but we reserve credit for our individual selves when it comes to all that is noble and enlightened. I can see why we do it: it puts our mind at ease, but not why are justified in the assumption. We could just as easily assume that all good and noble actions are just as much part of our human nature as we assume the same for avarice. Nothing, except our self-deception, compels us to believe otherwise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, being an avid fan of Atlas Shrugged on numberous levels (and a non-fan on a couple) I can unequivocally state that no such John Galt as you imagine exists.

I do acknowledge that humans can improve how we behave - but within very finite limits. Every generation has those who, whether by discipline, upbringing, education, religion etc. conduct themselves at times above the rest. But such behavior itself is necessarily constrained. Even those "paragons of virtue" are afflicted with all the foibles and flaws inherent to their basic nature. No discipline or religion can eradicate the fleshly nature, nor can we alter it.

And no amount of "enlightenment" will ever change who and what we are in the flesh - and it certainly won't come through some superior vision of government. The genius of our Constitution is that it recognizes this, and those who wrote it, did so with it in mind. That was their "enlightened" contribution to the world.

But what is to say that their 'enlightened contribution' was nothing more than a manifestation of the finer aspects of human nature? What is to say that it is not in our nature to be enlightened or to seek enlightenment, or to do good and become neighbours in a truly deep sense? As I said before, we play a cruel trick on ourselves when we relegate all that we despise about our behaviour into unaccountable 'human nature', but we reserve credit for our individual selves when it comes to all that is noble and enlightened. I can see why we do it: it puts our mind at ease, but not why are justified in the assumption. We could just as easily assume that all good and noble actions are just as much part of our human nature as we assume the same for avarice. Nothing, except our self-deception, compels us to believe otherwise.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

But what is to say that their 'enlightened contribution' was nothing more than a manifestation of the finer aspects of human nature? What is to say that it is not in our nature to be enlightened or to seek enlightenment, or to do good and become neighbours in a truly deep sense?

Let's not forget we're talking about the US Constitution.

We can speculate and philosophize all we want about our "enlightenment" or on seeking same - but we'd only be kidding ourselves, kidding ourselves into thinking we're any different human beings than those that preceeded us - or worse, thinking ourselves justified somehow in thinking same. An honest historian will admit that in a heartbeat. And again, justification based on what? Better technology? More knowledge?

In the end, it's what God says that carries the day as far as the truth is concerned:

10 as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

...and 23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

- Romans 2 (NASB)

As I said before, we play a cruel trick on ourselves when we relegate all that we despise about our behaviour into unaccountable 'human nature', but we reserve credit for our individual selves when it comes to all that is noble and enlightened. I can see why we do it: it puts our mind at ease, but not why are justified in the assumption. We could just as easily assume that all good and noble actions are just as much part of our human nature as we assume the same for avarice. Nothing, except our self-deception, compels us to believe otherwise.

Who told you human nature is somehow "unaccountable?" We're all accountable for what we do - our "human nature" isn't some faceless, soul-less waste receptacle into which we can arbitrarily dump our excuses for bad behaviors - it's your nature, mine, everyone's. "The devil made me do it!" was a joke of a defense when and is a joke of a defense now.

And no, we cannot "just as easily assume that all good and noble actions are just as much part of our human nature..." The only self deception there is believing that. I don't accept your premise at all - it is pure sophistry with no basis in reality or history, let alone scripture, and with all due respect, the cruel joke is on anyone who happens to believe it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who told you human nature is somehow "unaccountable?" We're all accountable for what we do - our "human nature" isn't some faceless, soul-less waste receptacle into which we can arbitrarily dump our excuses for bad behaviors - it's your nature, mine, everyone's. "The devil made me do it!" was a joke of a defense when and is a joke of a defense now.

The concept of 'human nature', as it is used commonly, entails a lack of accountability. How can you be held accountable for some action attributed to human nature? You can't, because it's only natural to act in such a way. That's precisely the concept I am attacking.

And no, we cannot "just as easily assume that all good and noble actions are just as much part of our human nature..." The only self deception there is believing that. I don't accept your premise at all - it is pure sophistry with no basis in reality or history, let alone scripture, and with all due respect, the cruel joke is on anyone who happens to believe it.

With all due respect you're entitled to that opinion. That said, why should I be anymore justified in believing that good and noble acts are not part of human nature whereas bad and ignoble acts are? There's no evidence for why I might think that doing something selfish is 'human nature' whereas doing something kind is not. The only motivation I might have for believing thus would be if I wanted to make myself worthy of esteem and honour. To make myself worthy of esteem I would have to deny that kindness and goodness are part of human nature and thereby make it appear that I have done something that transcends my human nature. But this formulation is merely an ego-stroking, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not justified in believing that kindness is any less part of human nature than selfishness.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

Sorry Art - but we're already way off topic, and besides, this is becoming a philosophical aeration pond wherein neither argument will ever float with the other... iow, I"ve no interest arguing this further.

 

[tanzanos]

..........