Did YOU vote?

Jekyll wrote: I've never seen the amount of advertising like I did this cycle. It was WAY over the top. I can think of a lot better things that four billion coulda been spent on myself, but that's a whole other topic. Good point though.

BlazerBob wrote:

ComputerBreath wrote: Yes, I voted. I am a permanent mail-in/drop off person.

One of the things that was repeatedly told me when I was in the military was that because we were given the right to vote we should take it....

My memory is a bit hazy that far back but I think enlisting is what first got me to pay attention. I can remember the days as an adult when the only part of the paper I read were the comics and the op-eds because I regarded them as adult comics.

Dear Abby and/or Ann Landers were always on the top of my read list when it came to the paper when I was younger. Sometimes, to this day, I still get more out of them than I do anything else in the paper.

PrintSmith wrote: Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other individual welfare program funded via the levying and collection of federal income taxes, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, R&D grants, tax exemptions carved out for individual companies or industries, the list is nearly as long as the number of federal budget items.

As to what constitutes the enumerated powers, that is contained in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. It is quite specific as to what the enumerated powers of the Congress are:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

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;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

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;

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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

Do you see a power delegated to provide individual welfare subsidies of any stripe let alone the huge variety of stripes that currently exist? Do you see a warrant of power to guarantee loans made by banks to anyone regardless of what the purpose of the loan is? The federal government is currently guaranteeing home loans, education loans, business loans, and other varieties of loans between institutions and individuals both domestically and internationally. Where is the delegation of power to do that?

Certainly the Congress was delegated the power to hire an artist to produce a specific piece for the federal government, a portrait of the president as an example. But to then turn around and say that allows it to subsidize an individual artist to pursue their art however they wish is to invent a new power for itself. Do you see that difference? One is proper under the Constitution, one is not. For the Congress to appropriate money to develop a new battle rifle for use by the army is a proper exercise of delegated powers, but not in the manner that is currently being done. The proper way is to tell the arms manufacturers that the army is interested in a new battle rifle, if you are interested bring a prototype for examination. The improper way is to provide seed money to 30 different companies, many of which donated money to your campaign and your party, to see what they come up with.

The proper way of developing alternative energy is to issue a RFP for a solar array to run the Capital and hire one of them to build the array. The improper way is to guarantee loans to 30 different companies, the heads of which made contributions to your campaign and your party, with no product so as to help them develop their product.

The first, in both examples, is a delegated power of Congress. The other is a power Congress invented for itself. Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter written to William Johnson in 1823:

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Now if you are of the opinion that the ACA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and every other individual welfare subsidy currently provided by the federal government conforms to the intent that was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted instead of being real world examples of trying what meaning may be squeezed from the text or invented against it I'd love to have that discussion with you.

One point before you begin. I am not necessarily opposed to providing these subsidies as many of them address real world needs. I am, however, opposed to having the federal government be the level of government from which these subsidies originate. Remember, my objection is that the majority, instead of the minority, of my tax dollars are going to Washington DC. That doesn't mean I would be opposed to paying the same, or perhaps higher, taxes at the local and State level to address these same issues, it means I am opposed to sending those tax dollars to the federal government.

PrintSmith, when you start asking rhetorical questions, you lose me as far as my interest level is concerned. Much of what you've posted here is well written, and well thought out. But when you start "Do you see", and "Where is the delegation to do that" as part of your debate, the interest is gone because you come across as "I dare you". I'm not going to take you up on those kinds of dares. It's a personal thing. Come back with a less condescending tone, and I'll be happy to debate the issues with you.

ZHawke wrote: I can understand the attitude, too, with regard to advertising bombardment. That also, then could arguably beg a question whether or not money in politics might have played a role in the outcomes we've been seeing? It's been estimated these mid-term elections cost upwards of 4 billion dollars, the highest total ever for mid-terms. Again, could this have played a role?

Absolutely, money played a role.

If the "Yes to GMO" people had the same amount of money given them as the "No to GMO" people did, maybe that amendment/proposition would have had a fighting chance. For those individuals whose only way of getting information was from TV ads or who were lazy and didn't want to learn anything about this amendment/proposition...they certainly only had one point-of-view.

And that is one example of money in politics playing a role in the outcome.

I guess that means you don't see a specific delegation of authority for any of those programs contained in the Constitution either Z. That's a good starting point with regards to our discussion of what constitutes an enumerated power versus one the federal government invented for itself.

And when I ask a question, such as, "Do you see the difference?", it is because I'm not at all sure that you do, in fact, see a difference between paying an artist for a specific purpose and subsidizing an artist simply to do whatever they wish in pursuit of their art with federal dollars and how one is an application of enumerated powers and the other is not. For all I know there is no difference from you perspective, which gives us an avenue to further the discussion if such is the case.

And so I ask, sincerely, do you see a delegation of power from the citizens of the States to the federal government to levy a tax upon them to provide individual welfare subsidies to other citizens of their State or citizens of a different State from a common treasury?

PrintSmith wrote: I guess that means you don't see a specific delegation of authority for any of those programs contained in the Constitution either Z. That's a good starting point with regards to our discussion of what constitutes an enumerated power versus one the federal government invented for itself.

And when I ask a question, such as, "Do you see the difference?", it is because I'm not at all sure that you do, in fact, see a difference between paying an artist for a specific purpose and subsidizing an artist simply to do whatever they wish in pursuit of their art with federal dollars and how one is an application of enumerated powers and the other is not. For all I know there is no difference from you perspective, which gives us an avenue to further the discussion if such is the case.

And so I ask, sincerely, do you see a delegation of power from the citizens of the States to the federal government to levy a tax upon them to provide individual welfare subsidies to other citizens of their State or citizens of a different State from a common treasury?

Thank you for the explanation, PrintSmith. That being said, rhetorical questions, such as those you frequently include in your posts, can be, and often times are, interpreted as being condescending in tone. That's why I have a difficult time with them. Whether or not you aren't sure whether or not I "get it" isn't something I believe should be a part of the debate. You can ask straightforward questions, as you did at the end of your post here, without the condescension. Those I will respond to. The others, not so much.

In answer (and this is going to sound like a tapdance of the first order) to your question, it all depends on one's perspective with regard to whether or not the Constitution is supposed to be considered a "living document" or not. With a very strict interpretation of the Constitution also comes a very rigid approach to governance, in my opinion. It is arguable that some of the social welfare programs we currently have in place are administered by the states already with funding coming from the Federal government and allocated by same based on Federal guidelines, standards, and criteria. I don't personally see a problem with that because the Federal government also has a duty to provide for the general welfare. What that specifically means in terms of powers enumerated in the Constitution is what I believe we have some margin of disagreement on.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

In my opinion, it's just not as simple and straightforward an issue as you would apparently have us believe.

Andy Borowitz:

You can complain about the election results all you want, but 36 percent of the people who could have voted have spoken.

Which goes a long way towards not answering the question posed. I didn't ask whether or not some people believed anything, I asked specifically if you believed something. You aren't running for office that I am aware of Z, so it's more than acceptable to actually state your beliefs here. The answer to the question doesn't depend on what anyone other than yourself believes.

And yes, the question is precisely as simple as I've laid it out to be. The question isn't whether the powers Congress and the federal government have invented for themselves may be tortured from the text of the Constitution, we have actual proof that it is possible to do so; the question is whether or not such torturing is consistent with the intent of those who authored the document and those that ratified it.

As for the individual welfare programs administered by the States and funded, at least in part, by the federal government, they are a sham, nothing more, nothing less. Whether Colorado participates in Medicaid or not the citizens of Colorado are going to be taxed to provide it for the citizens of the States that do participate in the boondoggle. Why am I, a citizen of one State, helping to fund the care provided to a citizen of a different State? All that encourages is a discouragement of migration from areas of no opportunity to areas of opportunity. I am not a citizen of New York, or Texas, or Florida, or Montana, so why am I helping to subsidize their citizens? The welfare of the citizens of New York is a New York concern, not a Colorado concern. If New York needs an influx of money once or twice to get them over a rough spot is one thing, to perpetually expect that welfare courtesy of the citizens of every other State quite another.

PrintSmith wrote: Which goes a long way towards not answering the question posed. I didn't ask whether or not some people believed anything, I asked specifically if you believed something. You aren't running for office that I am aware of Z, so it's more than acceptable to actually state your beliefs here. The answer to the question doesn't depend on what anyone other than yourself believes.

I disagree, PrintSmith. I did, in fact, answer your question.....fully. My perspective on this is obviously different from yours. You tried to define very narrow parameters in which you expected me to comply. That I refuse to "fit" within those parameters doesn't mean I didn't answer your question. Rather, it means you just didn't like the answer I gave.

PrintSmith wrote: And yes, the question is precisely as simple as I've laid it out to be. The question isn't whether the powers Congress and the federal government have invented for themselves may be tortured from the text of the Constitution, we have actual proof that it is possible to do so; the question is whether or not such torturing is consistent with the intent of those who authored the document and those that ratified it.

Again, I disagree. The question may be simple. The answer(s) are not. Determining "intent" of the Founding Fathers is something that's been going on since they drew up the Constitution. I happen to believe if they were somehow able to be transported via time machine into the present day, they wouldn't have a clue as to where to begin addressing some of the conundrums you, I, and everyone else puts forward as being "their intent".

PrintSmith wrote: As for the individual welfare programs administered by the States and funded, at least in part, by the federal government, they are a sham, nothing more, nothing less. Whether Colorado participates in Medicaid or not the citizens of Colorado are going to be taxed to provide it for the citizens of the States that do participate in the boondoggle. Why am I, a citizen of one State, helping to fund the care provided to a citizen of a different State? All that encourages is a discouragement of migration from areas of no opportunity to areas of opportunity. I am not a citizen of New York, or Texas, or Florida, or Montana, so why am I helping to subsidize their citizens? The welfare of the citizens of New York is a New York concern, not a Colorado concern. If New York needs an influx of money once or twice to get them over a rough spot is one thing, to perpetually expect that welfare courtesy of the citizens of every other State quite another.

I counter with this: those programs are in place. States do, in fact, receive Federal funding for multiple other programs, as well. I interpret the welfare clause in the Preamble of the Constitution to give government, both Federal and state, a little "wiggle room" in what it means exactly. That's why we have checks and balances at all levels of government.

I do not interpret the roles and responsibilities of states toward their own and other state's citizenry the same way you do. I look at it more from a perspective of I am a citizen of this nation, first and foremost. We are, in fact, a union of states. If we don't at least try to look out for each other, then why have a nation in the first place? Should we just do away with the Federal government and let each state fend for themselves? Black and white question. Relevant or not is in the eye of the beholder.

What you see yourself primarily to be doesn't exist Z. There is no nation to be a citizen of, at least not here. You, I, and everyone else in the Union are citizens of but one State and it isn't the United State (singular) of America, which is what you have said you primarily see yourself to be.

You and I are citizens of Colorado. That is the only State that you are a citizen of. You have the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of Texas when you are in Texas because the State in which you are a citizen belongs to the same Union as Texas does, but you aren't a citizen of whatever area you happen to be in.

We are, indeed, a Union of States. We are united by a single currency, a single foreign policy, a single Navy and other armed forces comprised of citizens from every State in the Union. No person can be a citizen of all 50 States, even when they are outside of the Union they are a citizen of but one of the States. But when a citizen of Colorado is in Germany the federal government has been delegated the power to ensure their safety and to deal with the government of Germany should a reason for such interaction become necessary.

Their is no national citizenship Z, it's an imaginary being like the imaginary friends small children have. What you primarily believe yourself to be doesn't exist in the real world we inhabit.