Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

[Quantum Windbag]

1

that's not what they thought when they ratified it: the federalist #44

fed 44 deals with section 10, didn't see anything related to this discussion. Although i will admit i scanned it quickly, if you think i over looked something, you might want to quote it.

the sixth and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest.

1. Of these the first is, the "power 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."

few parts of the constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

There are four other possible methods which the constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not expressly delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of confederation, it is evident that the new congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "expressly" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of confederation, has been or can be executed by congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of construction or implication. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not expressly granted.

had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, not necessary or proper, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.

Had the constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. no axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the union.

Let me see, that gives Congress the power to make copyright and patent laws, and even extend them arbitrarily. That does not, however say anything about giving them the power to fund anything regarding arts or sciences. I would, however, be willing to compromise and allow Congress to fund both as long as whoever took the money would understand that any subsequent intellectual property that came out of that funding immediately became public domain and freely available to anyone who wanted to use it.

Sound reasonable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And......we have another. There is no end the the number of brilliant Constitutional scholars who grace these pages. How lucky can we be. And here...two of them think that the founders were interested in prohibiting national interest in the arts and sciences!

If it doesn't specifically say that federal money can be spent on something....it means that federal money must not be spent on it. This is the lofty logic that we are up against.

How does that compare to your version, which essentially says that, even if it says the government cannot do something, they can?

Be honest now, which makes more sense?

 

[Stephanie]

For someone who never held a real job in his life, that Obama sure knows all about EVERYTHING and what we should have and do

 

[OKTexas]

1

that's not what they thought when they ratified it: the federalist #44

fed 44 deals with section 10, didn't see anything related to this discussion. Although i will admit i scanned it quickly, if you think i over looked something, you might want to quote it.

the sixth and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest.

1. Of these the first is, the "power 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."

few parts of the constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

There are four other possible methods which the constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not expressly delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of confederation, it is evident that the new congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "expressly" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of confederation, has been or can be executed by congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of construction or implication. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not expressly granted.

had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, not necessary or proper, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.

Had the constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. no axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the union.

Same tired argument that the necessary and proper clause is some how an all encompassing power when even it is limited to necessary laws for the execution of the foregoing powers. Which in this case would be to enact laws establishing patent and copyright offices and procedures. Care to try again?

 

[OKTexas]

And......we have another. There is no end the the number of brilliant Constitutional scholars who grace these pages. How lucky can we be. And here...two of them think that the founders were interested in prohibiting national interest in the arts and sciences!

If it doesn't specifically say that federal money can be spent on something....it means that federal money must not be spent on it. This is the lofty logic that we are up against.

There is a reason for Article 5, if the Constitution isn't working as costructed there is a method for changing it. Ignoring it in my opinion is not an option, because once that is widely accepted you get the monster we have today.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

 

[OKTexas]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

That is exactly what Atricle 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says, the founders saw the roll of government as a protector of inventors and authors so their works could not be stolen. They did not envision the government having a roll in funding it. Why is the concept of LIMITED government such a hard thing to get your head around?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

Do you have some kind of evidence that they supported it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yep. Two brilliant Constitutional scholars have me cornered! Whatever will I do?

I know! I'll toss one of my common sense bombs. Being a liberal, I have an endless supply.

Science Coalition - Success Stories

 

[OKTexas]

Yep. Two brilliant Constitutional scholars have me cornered! Whatever will I do?

I know! I'll toss one of my common sense bombs. Being a liberal, I have an endless supply.

Science Coalition - Success Stories

Why is it you keep ignoring the facts, I guess you agree with us as to the content of the Constitution because you have yet to come up with plausible argument contradicting it. Why is that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I do not agree with you. You are pretending that the USC is not a living document.

I am pragmatic. Try it.

 

[OKTexas]

I do not agree with you. You are pretending that the USC is not a living document.

I am pragmatic. Try it.

So you think the act of writing it down was an exercise in futility and a contract as written is not enforceable and by extension we are a nation of men and not laws. I say this because the Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of The Land. Explain how they got it so wrong. Come on there genius, explain how the Constitution can be magically altered outside of Article 5. Using your theory there is nothing solid black and white, just opinion and shades of gray and nothing means what it says. Try being pragmatic about that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not agree with you. You are pretending that the USC is not a living document.

I am pragmatic. Try it.

The guy that thinks the 2nd only applies to muskets suddenly wants the Constitution to be a living document.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I do not agree with you. You are pretending that the USC is not a living document.

I am pragmatic. Try it.

The guy that thinks the 2nd only applies to muskets suddenly wants the Constitution to be a living document.

What guy?

You are a tool.

 

[OKTexas]

I do not agree with you. You are pretending that the USC is not a living document.

I am pragmatic. Try it.

The guy that thinks the 2nd only applies to muskets suddenly wants the Constitution to be a living document.

What guy?

You are a tool.

And you are not man enought to admit when you are wrong, I'm done with this one, we both know you have been owned. Have a great day.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters OFTEN claim victory when none is had.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OK Texas -

Finland is a member state of the CERN organisation, and uses CERN as a research base. Thus, some of my tax euros go into running CERN.

This does not mean Finland was forced to join CERN!!

It does, however, mean that the government is involved, and that, as a result, force is being used.

Nonsense. You live in a democracy, you choose your government. If you want to vote for a party that wants to do away with taxes, no one is going to stop you.

No we live in Republic, there is a big difference.

 

[OKTexas]

It does, however, mean that the government is involved, and that, as a result, force is being used.

Nonsense. You live in a democracy, you choose your government. If you want to vote for a party that wants to do away with taxes, no one is going to stop you.

No we live in Republic, there is a big difference.

No need to waste your time on this one or lonelaugher, neither are capable of making intelligent arguments. They think their opinions are good enough.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Ah, man... I thought hydrogen was gonna be the wave of the future like Bush said

Natural gas is cheaper, and has less of an impact on global warming.

Gas, Natural

Identifications
• Formula: CH3CH(OH)CH2CH3
Elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen
• CAS Number: 78-92-2
• RTECS Number: EO1750000
• Synonyms/Related:◦2-Hydroxybutane
◦ Butylene hydrate
◦ Gas, Natural
◦ Methyl ethyl carbinol

That's a lot of Hydrogen in one molecule of natural gas.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

by Lise Maring




When most of us think about oil, we tend to think about heating oil for the furnace and about the gasoline and diesel fuel that keeps our cars and trucks on the road. What most of us don't realize, however, is that oil does more than just fuel our vehicles and keep us warm in winter. It has become the foundation upon which our entire modern civilization has been built. Recently, that foundation has begun to develop some cracks and has become a little shakier than it used to be, as cheap oil and natural gas become harder to find and acquire. Even if we were to develop a new source of energy and a more fuel-efficient car today, without oil, modern civilization as we have come to know it is still in deep trouble.
To start with the basics, armies aren't the only organizations that run on their stomachs. So do civilizations. Agribusiness is totally dependent upon large machines and artificial fertilizers and pesticides in order to raise, harvest, and transport the vast quantities of grain, fruit, and vegetables we enjoy today. Fertilizers and pesticides require oil and natural gas, not only in their distribution, but in their manufacture as well. Also, feed for beef cattle, chickens, and turkeys depends very heavily on these same fertilizers and pesticides. When cheap sources of oil and gas are not readily available, the chemical industry passes the increased costs on to agriculture. The increasing prices for fertilizers and pesticides then results in increased food prices for the rest of us.

We may find ourselves eating farther down the food chain in the near future. In other words, we eat the grain instead of feeding it to something else first, since each link added in the food chain results in energy loss. In the future, the turkey and chicken "factories" we have now may not exist. The vast feedlots where cattle are fattened on grain before being slaughtered and made into hamburger patties for the nation's fast food restaurants may no longer be economical. Thus, wastes from such industries may no longer be available to those who believe it could serve as a viable large-scale energy source for the future.

The world is now consuming roughly 77 million barrels of oil a day. And the demand grows every year as other countries aspire to our style of living and level of consumption. What's really interesting is that out of that 77 million barrels, the U.S. consumes most of it. In 2002, the U.S. consumed 19.66 million barrels a day on the average--more than one-quarter of the entire world's oil consumption--and the demand in this country continues to grow every year. You can check this out for yourself on this US Department of Energy web site: eia.doe.gov


[Excerpt]

Read more:
World without Oil