So liberals, why do we have a Constitution at all?

[kaz]

Liberals keep saying that the Federal government can do anything it wants. The commerce clause justifies any government regulation over any business anywhere, and the general welfare clause justifies anything else they want to do. So if that's the case:

Why did they put in the 9th and 10th amendments? The 10th amendment says any power not given to the Federal government by the people is prohibited to the Federal government and the 9th amendment says that any power not specifically reserved in the Bill of Rights is as important as any that is. Why did they say that if the Federal government can do anything it wants?

Why did they put in the Constitution that the Federal government can confiscate property "for public use" if they can actually confiscate property for any reason at all?

And why did they give a power to government to have guns in the bill of rights since that's what the second amendment supposedly says, that government has the right to have guns.

Why did they have a Constitution at all since apparently it means nothing and provides no limit at all to the Federal government?

 

[Mad Scientist]

That's racist!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Constitution? What's that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals keep saying that the Federal government can do anything it wants. The commerce clause justifies any government regulation over any business anywhere, and the general welfare clause justifies anything else they want to do. So if that's the case:

Why did they put in the 9th and 10th amendments? The 10th amendment says any power not given to the Federal government by the people is prohibited to the Federal government and the 9th amendment says that any power not specifically reserved in the Bill of Rights is as important as any that is. Why did they say that if the Federal government can do anything it wants?

Why did they put in the Constitution that the Federal government can confiscate property "for public use" if they can actually confiscate property for any reason at all?

And why did they give a power to government to have guns in the bill of rights since that's what the second amendment supposedly says, that government has the right to have guns.

Why did they have a Constitution at all since apparently it means nothing and provides no limit at all to the Federal government?

Wrong.

Liberals have made no such 'argument.'

The courts have checked Congress when it has overstepped its authority granted it by the Commerce Clause (see, e.g., US v. Lopez (1995), US v. Morrison (2000)).

Post-Lochner Commerce Clause jurisprudence is predicated on a sound, appropriate, and wise understanding of the changes that occurred during the first quarter of the 20th Century with regard to the industrialization of the workplace and the new relationship between employer and employee (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)).

It's naïve and reactionary, therefore, to seek to return to the 19th Century fantasy of 'liberty to contract' in an America of the 21st Century.

As for the 10th Amendment, it was never the intent of the Framers to codify a doctrine allowing the states to interfere with the Federal government when acting in accordance with the authority granted it by the Constitution (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)); as acts of Congress are supreme, and states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts (US Constitution, Article VI):

The [10th A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IVid.140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

We have a Constitution to protect the civil liberties of citizens from egregious government overreach, when the states seek to deny a woman her right to privacy, or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, for example.

As Justice Kennedy accurately and eloquently explained in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This indeed best illustrates the meaning of the Constitution, how the Framers intended the Founding Document to function, and why in fact we have a Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Constitution? What's that?

It's that thing you keep screaming about you've never actually read.

Or was that the Bible?

I think it's both, actually.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals keep saying that the Federal government can do anything it wants. The commerce clause justifies any government regulation over any business anywhere, and the general welfare clause justifies anything else they want to do. So if that's the case:

Why did they put in the 9th and 10th amendments? The 10th amendment says any power not given to the Federal government by the people is prohibited to the Federal government and the 9th amendment says that any power not specifically reserved in the Bill of Rights is as important as any that is. Why did they say that if the Federal government can do anything it wants?

Why did they put in the Constitution that the Federal government can confiscate property "for public use" if they can actually confiscate property for any reason at all?

And why did they give a power to government to have guns in the bill of rights since that's what the second amendment supposedly says, that government has the right to have guns.

Why did they have a Constitution at all since apparently it means nothing and provides no limit at all to the Federal government?

It wouldn't be very democratic to have a government that was designed just to please you would it?

Grow up.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals keep saying that the Federal government can do anything it wants. The commerce clause justifies any government regulation over any business anywhere, and the general welfare clause justifies anything else they want to do. So if that's the case:

Why did they put in the 9th and 10th amendments? The 10th amendment says any power not given to the Federal government by the people is prohibited to the Federal government and the 9th amendment says that any power not specifically reserved in the Bill of Rights is as important as any that is. Why did they say that if the Federal government can do anything it wants?

Why did they put in the Constitution that the Federal government can confiscate property "for public use" if they can actually confiscate property for any reason at all?

And why did they give a power to government to have guns in the bill of rights since that's what the second amendment supposedly says, that government has the right to have guns.

Why did they have a Constitution at all since apparently it means nothing and provides no limit at all to the Federal government?

Wrong.

Liberals have made no such 'argument.'

The courts have checked Congress when it has overstepped its authority granted it by the Commerce Clause (see, e.g., US v. Lopez (1995), US v. Morrison (2000)).

Post-Lochner Commerce Clause jurisprudence is predicated on a sound, appropriate, and wise understanding of the changes that occurred during the first quarter of the 20th Century with regard to the industrialization of the workplace and the new relationship between employer and employee (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)).

It's naïve and reactionary, therefore, to seek to return to the 19th Century fantasy of 'liberty to contract' in an America of the 21st Century.

As for the 10th Amendment, it was never the intent of the Framers to codify a doctrine allowing the states to interfere with the Federal government when acting in accordance with the authority granted it by the Constitution (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)); as acts of Congress are supreme, and states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts (US Constitution, Article VI):

The [10th A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IVid.140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

We have a Constitution to protect the civil liberties of citizens from egregious government overreach, when the states seek to deny a woman her right to privacy, or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, for example.

As Justice Kennedy accurately and eloquently explained in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

This indeed best illustrates the meaning of the Constitution, how the Framers intended the Founding Document to function, and why in fact we have a Constitution.

And.....that would be the death of a thread.