Feds want to lower BAC to .05 for drunk driving

[SmarterthanYou]

No. Aside from "We the People of the United States..." I guess you've got me there.

then you're an even bigger imbecile than you first represented yourself as. I was going to address all of your sentences separately, but it actually can be summed up in one question.

does the constitution define the limits of the rights of the people or the limits on the powers of the government?

 

[Stelakh]

then I guess that also means that the feds can constitutionally tell farmers how much wheat they can actually grow because 'commerce'. you sound like a living constitution liberal. congrats.

I said:

Eisenhower's stated purpose for the Act was to be able to get Army units from place to place. That falls under national defense. Whether anyone likes it or not, given that Eisenhower actually SAID why the highways were being built, their construction and maintenance is Constitutional. End of.

Would you care to point out where I said that highways are Constitutional because of commerce, or that commerce in fact permits the Constitutional limitation on crop size?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I said:

Would you care to point out where I said that highways are Constitutional because of commerce, or that commerce in fact permits the Constitutional limitation on crop size?

you don't understand comparisons using vague language now? you sure seemed to understand it by using 'broad definition' and national defense as an excuse to do something not specifically listed in the constitution.

 

[Stelakh]

then you're an even bigger imbecile than you first represented yourself as. I was going to address all of your sentences separately, but it actually can be summed up in one question.

does the constitution define the limits of the rights of the people or the limits on the powers of the government?

The Constitution does not specifically define the limits on the rights of the people, but it also does not specifically state that the rights of the people are limitless - this is why there are laws regarding such things as slander/libel/defamation, why there are laws against incitement to riot, why there are laws against murder.

Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are limited by their ability to infringe on the rights of others. Our rights are constrained for good reason, and often involve inchoate offenses (incitement, conspiracy to commit, etc.). As the old saying goes, "you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre".

This is why, as an example, the Supreme Court ruled that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”, and that it is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Conversely, the Constitution, through its (admittedly inadequate) three-branch system of checks and balances does seek to limit the powers of government. The intent is to forestall unilateral action by a single entity - be they an individual person (as in a monarchy or dictatorship) or branch of government.

I hope this is not too subtle.

 

[Stelakh]

you don't understand comparisons using vague language now? you sure seemed to understand it by using 'broad definition' and national defense as an excuse to do something not specifically listed in the constitution.

You don't seem to understand that, "Farmers cannot grow more than X amount of wheat because of Commerce" is not - even at the most vague - comparable to "Roadways constructed for the purpose of national defense are Constitutional".

"Constitution" and "Commerce" may both start with the letter C, but they are not, in fact, remotely similar in definition.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution does not specifically define the limits on the rights of the people, but it also does not specifically state that the rights of the people are limitless - this is why there are laws regarding such things as slander/libel/defamation, why there are laws against incitement to riot, why there are laws against murder.

you're familiar with the 9th Amendment?

Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are limited by their ability to infringe on the rights of others. Our rights are constrained for good reason, and often involve inchoate offenses (incitement, conspiracy to commit, etc.). As the old saying goes, "you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre".

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

This is why, as an example, the Supreme Court ruled that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”, and that it is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

there are over a dozen references in the bill of rights about what the government 'shall not' do, so kindly point out where any of the founders stated that to mean 'not unlimited'.

Conversely, the Constitution, through its (admittedly inadequate) three-branch system of checks and balances does seek to limit the powers of government. The intent is to forestall unilateral action by a single entity - be they an individual person (as in a monarchy or dictatorship) or branch of government.

OMG, are you fucking kidding me? the very lengthy constitutional convention, minutes, debates, commentaries, and votes of ratification CLEARLY state that the constitution limits the new central government to ONLY those powers listed, so how do you get that it doesn't seek to limit the powers of government?

I hope this is not too subtle.

not at all. it is earth shattering evidence you're a retard authoritarian.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You don't seem to understand that, "Farmers cannot grow more than X amount of wheat because of Commerce" is not - even at the most vague - comparable to "Roadways constructed for the purpose of national defense are Constitutional".

"Constitution" and "Commerce" may both start with the letter C, but they are not, in fact, remotely similar in definition.

no, it's just apples and apples.

 

[Stelakh]

you're familiar with the 9th Amendment?

Oh, yes, indeed.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What this means is that rights the People would have but are not mentioned in the Constitution still exist. It is intended to protect individual rights from exclusion by omission in the Constitutional text. The right, for example, for blacks and whites to marry each other or for same-sex marriage. Neither of these rights are included specifically by the Constitution, but they are rights which fall under the Ninth Amendment.

It is, essentially, an "et cetera" caveat to those rights which are specifically named - which is exactly what James Madison intended when he insisted it be included. Without it, the "Bill of Rights" could be construed as to contain all and every right the People shall have.

there are over a dozen references in the bill of rights about what the government 'shall not' do, so kindly point out where any of the founders stated that to mean 'not unlimited'.

Like James Madison, who addressed the necessity of judicial review which, while not expressly granted in the Constitution, was finally established in 1803?

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

OMG, are you fucking kidding me? the very lengthy constitutional convention, minutes, debates, commentaries, and votes of ratification CLEARLY state that the constitution limits the new central government to ONLY those powers listed, so how do you get that it doesn't seek to limit the powers of government?

I think you'll find that I said:

Conversely, the Constitution, through its (admittedly inadequate) three-branch system of checks and balances does seek to limit the powers of government. The intent is to forestall unilateral action by a single entity - be they an individual person (as in a monarchy or dictatorship) or branch of government.