The CNN Democrat Debate Thread

[Libertarian01]

Sometimes I wish they'd been a little more blunt and a little less eloquent.

Madison, on 'general welfare':

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

General welfare from the founder's perspective should have meant for the benefit of all, not to certain interest groups. I know I certainly don't get any benefit out of SNAP.

While I may find some of my thinking in alignment with Madisons, the reality is that he wasn't the sole source of authority on interpretation for all time.

Add to this the reality of additional technology such as internet and television with the 1st Amendment and we have a whole host of things that are in the Constitution that it can give government the authority to act and/or enforce.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

Some interesting fac tchecking.

News from The Associated Press

 

[Alpo]

I'm not sure I learned anything from the AP in that article other than they have too many reporters picking fly specks out of the pepper. I'll wait for MediaMatters.

 

[level.eleven]

Haven't watched the whole thing, but I'm pleased to see adult conversations being held by at least one major party in the US.

The contrast between the two debates is astounding. Adults vs. the kiddie table.

It is refreshing to not hear anti-vaxx rhetoric, science is a communist plot, and candidates falling for internet hoaxes.

Substantive conversation. Policy discussion. It is possible.

 

[printcraft]

Oh, they are so adult and gracious, oh my, a thrill goes up my leg.

I'm waiting for the "gravitas" comments to start. ****ing please.

Bunch of socialist clowns talking about spending more money we don't have.
Already $18T in debt and they want to double down.

 

[JTScribe]

Add to this the reality of additional technology such as internet and television with the 1st Amendment and we have a whole host of things that are in the Constitution that it can give government the authority to act and/or enforce.

Regards,

Doug

I don't feel technology alters the equation one whit, nor should it. Communication is communication. The technology involved is just the method of transfer. They chose not to get specific and say "printing presses", "broadsheets", or "muskets", because many of them were inventors, and knew that science would create things that would change the landscape, and being specific would have limited progress.

 

[jamil]

I would humbly submit that this could be considered covered under Article I, Section 8 as follows "...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."

I know we don't like it and would prefer it to be narrowly defined, but the authority to pay for the general welfare does exist, and education could be considered such in a more liberal definition.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I don't like it either. I only acknowledge that it exists.

"General Welfare" means using that clause to say whatever your pet spending program is "constitutional'.

Sometimes I wish they'd been a little more blunt and a little less eloquent.

Madison, on 'general welfare':

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

General welfare from the founder's perspective should have meant for the benefit of all, not to certain interest groups. I know I certainly don't get any benefit out of SNAP.

Congress has created every one of those things Madison mentioned.

I'd vote for Webb over a few of the GOP candidates.

Very few but yes, I'd rather vote for Web than a few of the Republicans running. I think the democrats will treat Web much like Republicans treat Rand Paul. They'll just ignore him. I honestly don't see why he bothers to be a democrat. It is obvious to me that he is out of touch with Democrats. The general public interested in voting Democrat think nothing like him. The two-party system has really ****ed us.

I don't agree with a number of Bernie's views but he made plenty of excellent points. Wall Street does indeed run congress, not the people. His "for the people, by the people" sentiment is true. Many of the GOP candidates and Hillary don't want people in positions of power to question the authority big money has on our government.

Agreed with one addition, Wall Street doesn't only run congress, it runs the White House and probably SCOTUS as well. In his decision on Obamacare, John Roberts gave insurance companies a ******* for a reason.

Yea I never claimed the majority of people wanted to follow the Constitution, I'm just saying for those complaining that no one follows the Constitution there is a party that adheres strictly.

If the Libertarian party could resolve more than binary outcomes I could probably be one.

While I may find some of my thinking in alignment with Madisons, the reality is that he wasn't the sole source of authority on interpretation for all time.

Add to this the reality of additional technology such as internet and television with the 1st Amendment and we have a whole host of things that are in the Constitution that it can give government the authority to act and/or enforce.

Regards,

Doug

The constitution wasn't meant for its meaning to change with contemporary circumstances. The founders made a way to allow the constitution to comport with the times. They defined a process to change it. If US culture changes such that it thinks government should create positive rights, then it should follow the process defined in the constitution to allow it.

If the constitution just means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, then why should there even be a constitution? Effectively, now there really isn't one anyway. There's a panel of 9 politically appointed justices who vote on whether or not they like a law. They lock their lips around constituty words and then say it says what they want it to mean. That means we're not a nation of laws. We're a nation of people ruled by the power of corporations and special interests with disproportionate influence who know how to use twitter.

 

[Drail]

We have transformed from a Republic into a Socialist Democracy. And most Americans never even noticed it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With Bernie he tells you exactly what you're gonna get, unlike the Republicans who pay lip service to the Constitution to get elected then do whatever they want once in office. Libertarians are the only ones you're going to get who strictly follow the Constitution yet people won't vote for them because they are unelectable because people won't vote for them because they are unelectable...

Oh....you're serious.

 

[HoughMade]

The contrast between the two debates is astounding. Adults vs. the kiddie table.

It is refreshing to not hear anti-vaxx rhetoric, science is a communist plot, and candidates falling for internet hoaxes.

Substantive conversation. Policy discussion. It is possible.

Did you ever consider that he debates were set up so differently for a reason?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"General Welfare" means using that clause to say whatever your pet spending program is "constitutional'.



Congress has created every one of those things Madison mentioned.



Very few but yes, I'd rather vote for Web than a few of the Republicans running. I think the democrats will treat Web much like Republicans treat Rand Paul. They'll just ignore him. I honestly don't see why he bothers to be a democrat. It is obvious to me that he is out of touch with Democrats. The general public interested in voting Democrat think nothing like him. The two-party system has really ****ed us.



Agreed with one addition, Wall Street doesn't only run congress, it runs the White House and probably SCOTUS as well. In his decision on Obamacare, John Roberts gave insurance companies a ******* for a reason.



If the Libertarian party could resolve more than binary outcomes I could probably be one.



The constitution wasn't meant for its meaning to change with contemporary circumstances. The founders made a way to allow the constitution to comport with the times. They defined a process to change it. If US culture changes such that it thinks government should create positive rights, then it should follow the process defined in the constitution to allow it.

If the constitution just means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, then why should there even be a constitution? Effectively, now there really isn't one anyway. There's a panel of 9 politically appointed justices who vote on whether or not they like a law. They lock their lips around constituty words and then say it says what they want it to mean. That means we're not a nation of laws. We're a nation of people ruled by the power of corporations and special interests with disproportionate influence who know how to use twitter.

If what I see in this thread, and in many others, reflects what our schools teach about the Constitution anymore, it explains a lot.

 

[Jludo]

Did you ever consider that he debates were set up so differently for a reason?

They weren't set up differently just a different cast and crowd. If anything I feel like Cooper was harder on the dems than Tapper was on the repubs.
Donald trump being the front runner inherently insures a less substantive debate on the republican stage.

 

[Jludo]

If what I see in this thread and in Manu others reflects what our schools teach about the Constitution anymore, it explains a lot.

From what I've seen the substance on constitutionality of laws being discussed is on a fairly high level, "schools" hardly teach anything on the subject. I'd venture to guess average Americans are more ignorant than they are wrong.

 

[bwframe]

Some of you obviously watched a different debate than I did.
Full moon last night?


--------------------------------------------------

On another note; How much do we read into Bernie's and Hillary's numerous proclamations of what "The American people want..." ???

 

[Alpo]

Oh, they are so adult and gracious, oh my, a thrill goes up my leg.

I'm waiting for the "gravitas" comments to start. ****ing please.

Bunch of socialist clowns talking about spending more money we don't have.
Already $18T in debt and they want to double down.

And yet you are visiting a democrat thread. Interesting how this side is more courteous to you GOP boys on your thread.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How about a big ol' taste of ETHICS?

 

[bwframe]

And yet you are visiting a democrat thread...

I didn't see the blue. I thought this was a discussion thread about the enemy?

How could any member of a forum with gun owner in the title, respectfully suggest that they might even entertain the thought of voting for one of these candidates who proclaim they will take away your rights and take your guns?

 

[KG1]

And yet you are visiting a democrat thread. Interesting how this side is more courteous to you GOP boys on your thread.

It's a thread about democrats. Not a democrat thread.

 

[Alpo]

Mediocre intellectual reasoning can result in such logic gaps.

It does not follow that democrats and guns are mutually exclusive.

 

[Alpo]

It's a thread about democrats. Not a democrat thread.

Yes, I can how you would think that.