Trump Budget Proposes Killing All Funding for PBS, NPR and National Endowment for the Arts

No

Yeah, let's just show 'Housewives of Beverly Hills', 24/7. Real hard-core intellectual stuff. Who gives a crap what the Constitution says; by all means stay ignorant. Oh, and was that the same government 'propaganda' that was broadcast during Bush's term?

 

Who built Carnegie Hall?

 

And this also escaped the Trump supporter reality that they are not conservatives nor Republicans.

 

This comes at the same time the Saudis are dramatically expanding the arts and entertainment... historic preservation as well as parks and wildlife preserves.

 

You've been told this already. They are nothing more than opinions. They mean squat to the law or constitution. Not that hard to grasp.
2nd graders know the difference between opinion and law.

 

They recognized the need for a federal govt to handle certain specific tasks, they certainly did not recognize nor establish a strong federal government. The current extremely strong federal govt is the result of deliberate power grabs (such as Marbury) and deliberate misinterpretations by the supreme court of the constitution, notably misinterpretations of the welfare clause and the commerce clause.

In todays system of extremely centralized power in which the states are the administrative arms of the federal govt, and the checks and balances have been destroyed, the system does not work.

Under the Constitution as designed, the various state and federal branches of govt were decentralized (checks and balances) and the people had through the vote and their state legislatures control of the federal govt. Originally, the supreme court had no authority to enforce its rulings, all it could do was essentially provide advice as to the constitutionality of a particular issue, as a result any ruling that did not have the backing of the people was nullified.

The Constitution is not a "living document" to be constantly reinterpreted based on the current social trends. It was to be the absolute principles by which an educated and informed society operated. That's why Franklin said we had a republic "if you can keep it".

 

I guess you did not make it out of 2nd grade.

 

I think that's a very cramped, ideological reading of the actual process.

The government under the Articles of Confederation was very close to what you seem to want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Article_summaries

An extremely limited central government, due only the powers specifically granted it by the states;
The central government had authority over war and diplomacy, and that was about it. It had no power to actually enforce its decisions.
The central government had no taxation authority: all taxes had to go through the state legislatures. Any requisitions were requests to the states. Many decisions required unanimous or near-unanimous decisions by the states.
There was no chief executive, just a Congress. Congress could appoint temporary presidents, but only for one-year terms.

Isn't that a libertarian dream?

It was, of course, a disaster. The failure of the Articles was the main driving force behind the Constitutional Convention. In other words, it was called to make a STRONGER federal government, not a weaker one. The Founders did not want an omnipotent central government, with no restraints on its power. But the whole point was to INCREASE its power, not decrease it.

Divided government was how the Founders decided to square that circle, giving the federal government substantial power, but dividing it up so that it would stay restrained.

You will need to support that claim with more than mere assertion.

The states are far more than "the administrative arms of the federal government." They have clear areas of authority where the feds cannot trespass, just as the feds have clear areas where the states cannot trespass. There are certain cases where federal law trumps state law; there are far more areas where the feds have no authority to write law at all.

Take education, for example. The federal government has virtually no authority over how education is managed in this country. Our education system is conducted and paid for by the states. The Department of Education largely exists to promulgate best practices (to be voluntarily adopted, or not) and provide grants for education-related services or experiments.

To the extent that the federal government has outsized influence over the states, it tends to be in the form of a carrot: federal funding. "Do this and we'll give you billions", says the feds. "Don't do it, and you get nothing." Say what you will about that, but the states are free to take the money or not. Nobody is holding a gun to their head.

Not sure what you mean by "the various state and federal branches of govt were decentralized." If you mean the executive, legislative and judiciary, they still are. The emergence of political parties and ideological polarization has blurred those lines somewhat, but the lines are still there.

As far as the rest, the people still have control of the federal government through the vote. Not sure why you think they don't. The president and all of Congress are elected by the people. They also, separately, elect their state legislatures and governors. Those states ROUTINELY push back against the feds, often suing them for one thing or another. It's kind of hard to miss.

And also as a result, the Constitution would have had no actual meaning. It would mean whatever a majority said it meant. Hell, it would mean whatever Congress or the President said it meant. How is that protective of individual liberty? How is that a defense against tyranny?

I would much rather have the judiciary -- a group that cannot wield legislative or executive power itself, and thus has no direct motive for expanding such -- deciding what is constitutional than Congress or the president; wouldn't you?

Sure it is. I agree that it cannot be reinterpreted willy nilly, but the only reason the Constitution is still relevant is that it is a living document.

Without the ability to adapt, the Constitution would shackle us to the practices and mores of the 18th Century. That makes no sense.

Take the example I gave of "cruel and unusual punishment." If the meaning of that phrase cannot change, then we would be stuck with whatever was considered acceptable in the 18th Century. The only alternative would be to amend the Constitution to specifically include or exclude certain things. That is ludicrous. The Founders did not write the Constitution so that, 200 years later, we were still forced to put people in stocks: they wrote it as a general guide. As the definition of what is "cruel" changes, so can our practices. And the Constitution is fine with that.

That is the main gripe I have with Originalists: their approach would leave us stuck in the 18th Century.

 

Intelligent post, thanks.

 

Didn't you mean Anti-Socialist budget?

 

Your opinion seems to be forever wrong on everything.

 

First, most of the founders of the nation would classify themselves as libertarians (although the word came into use in the 1790's in Europe so they perhaps did not know of it).

The Articles of Confederation did not work, hence it was replaced with the Constitution in which a stronger (but not a strong) federal govt was established. Its that simple.

<>

Obviously the checks and balances have been destroyed, and the states are effectively reduced to simple administrative actions decreed by the federal govt. Look up Wikard v. Filburn and follow its path to today to see how the supreme court and federal govt broke the Constitution.

<>

Originally, the various state and federal branches of govt were decentralized. It was not as simple as breaking the federal govt into the 3 branches. It had to do with an understanding of human nature and a knowledge of history.

For example, politicians crave power and will work to increase their power. As a roadblock to the federal govt increasing its power, state legislators appointed their Congressional Senators which meant there would be no senator in Congress who wanted to transfer power from the state govt to the federal govt. That check was removed by the 17th Amendment.

LOL, you must be kidding. You think you truly have a choice in who runs for office? Tell all the Bernie supporters that their vote counts and watch them laugh at you.

And you have heard of "regulatory interpretation" in which regulators and the President "interpret" the laws? Such as obama "interpreting" immigration law to allow illegals to live in the USA.

Does this sound familiar: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out whats in it"

How about this: https://ivn.us/2014/12/15/members-congress-dont-believe-job-read-bills-pass/
With so much riding on this 1,600-page bill, the smallest detail could cost millions of dollars. But when asked if members of Congress had read the bill before passing it, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said, “Of course not. Are you kidding?”

Nobody not even originalists claim we have to follow the Constitution as originally penned but without the ability to amend it. There is a deliberative process for amending the Constitution. What people object to is the re-interpretation of the Constitution - such as the commerce clause.

The judiciary does now wield legislative and regulatory power. Look up school bussing or re-mapping voting districts if you doubt it.

 

So Trump isn't our elected president?

 

Nope he is Russia's elected puppet....

 

Great post. Well researched with excellent pertinent examples.

 

Seems like a very immature approach.

 

Yes, it is that simple. My point is that the vision of government you keep promoting has far more in common with the failed Articles of Confederation than it does with the government that emerged from the Constitutional Convention.

As I already said, you need more than mere assertion to have that point stand. You have so far failed to support that assertion AT ALL.

I have my issues with the Filburn case, probably the same ones you do. I think it was wrongly decided. But that case did not "break the Constitution." It gave Congress great power to regulate commerce, but that was it. And the checks and balances of our system still exist and still apply. And one day, Filburn may well be modified or overturned.

And by the by, Filburn created a situation that is what you claim to support -- the idea that the people, not the courts, should decide what is allowable and what isn't under the Constitution. After the Filburn ruling, the chief justice made a point of saying that the chief restraint on Congress in terms of the Commerce Clause should be voters, not the judiciary. Do you now disagree that that is the proper way of things?

Put another way, you complain that the judiciary should have no power to declare Congressional actions unConstitutional. Meaning anything Congress does should be assumed to be Constitutional unless the People object.

So whenever the court rules that a given law does not violate the Constitution, they are doing what you want: deferring to Congress, and leaving it up to voters to decide if they approve of the law.

Yet when they do that, you complain about THAT. So I'm not really clear on what you want.

Okay, so you think the Constitution was gutted when we went to direct election of Senators. Really? That's it?

I agree that direct election of Senators changed who the Senators responded to. But to argue that Senators now are fully incentivized to transfer power to the federal government is a little silly. They are elected, like the governor, by the people of their state. THAT is who they respond to. If they do not please those voters, they do not keep their job. THAT is the main incentive for Senators, not increasing the power of the federal government regardless of what their state thinks.

And don't forget the problems that came with states appointing senators, in particular corruption. Senate seats were regularly bought and sold for political favors. It's a lot easier to bribe a few dozen state legislators than a few million voters.

And because state legislatures appointed senators, there were frequently political deadlocks over the issue, resulting in states going for long periods of time with no representation in the Senate. This also caused Senate appointments to dominate most state elections, crowding out local issues.

But overall, to claim that doing so broke the Constitution is silly. Never mind that it was accomplished in Constitutional fashion, through an amendment. Thus making it and the results Constitutional.

LOL! Yes, I do. Bernie ran. He lost. Losing a race does not mean your supporters' votes didn't count.

Sure. And then people sue. Or Congress passes a law clarifying what the law means and how it should be applied. You know, checks and balances?

The president's JOB is to take the laws passed by Congress and figure out how to apply them. Which means taking a general law and turning it into specific regulations. Which means interpreting what the law means. I'm not sure how else you think it is supposed to work.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring congressmen to be competent, smart or diligent. The remedy to that is voters -- dumbasses who don't do their homework get voted out of office. Isn't that what you claim to support? So what are you complaining about?

The amendment process was always meant for large changes -- hence the very high bar for amendment. The Founders did not intend to require that the Constitution be amended to apply specifics to every case and variation that comes along.

No, what you object to is that you disagree with that interpretation. Which is fine. But interpretation itself is part and parcel of Constitutional law. It HAS to be. When it comes to applying the general language of the Constitution to specific cases, it is often not clear exactly how it applies, because real life is messy. You HAVE to make a judgement call -- interpretation -- in such cases.

The judiciary has the power to compel government to obey the Constitution. If the governments refuse to come up with a Constitutional law on their own, they have the power to force them to adopt specific remedies.

Let's take school busing, for example. SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" was unConstitutional, violating several parts of the Constitution surrounding equal treatment.

Many governments in segregated areas ignored that ruling.

In your world, that would be the end of it: Clearly unConstitutional practices would be allowed to continue, because the court has no power to enforce its rulings. How you think that would protect us from tyranny is beyond me.

In the real world, the NAACP sued, pointing out that the local governments were ignoring the law and engaging in clearly unConstitutional behavior. They asked the court to force those governments to obey the law. Specifically, the asked the court to declare a busing plan Constitutional.

The court did so.

How else is it supposed to work when the local governments are ignoring the Constitution? Shrug our shoulders and say "oh well"?

That is not "legislating." The courts cannot propose new laws. The courts cannot amend laws. The governments had lots of opportunities to address the problem without the court stepping in. And in the end, the courts are limited in three substantial ways:

• The executive and legislative branches appoint and approve the judges;
• If a court ruling turns on interpretation of a law, the legislature in question can always amend it to make their intention clear, if they feel the court ruled in error;
• Congress, the states and the people can always pass a Constitutional amendment to make something Constitutional, regardless of what the court says.

So power, as always, rests with the people and, secondarily, Congress.

You seem to want to argue philosophical generalities, not realistic specifics. Please stop dancing around that. I would like to know the following: In your perfect world, how would a given law be found Constitutional? How would the Constitution be applied to specific cases? What would happen if a government ignored the court's opinion on Constitutionality?

 

And you are wrong. I have stated the Articles of Confederation were a failure - obviously I do not want to return to that approach. Please read what is posted.

Filburn was a farce, the govt relied on ridiculous logical gymnastics to reach a clearly unconstitutional conclusion - and it was accepted by the supreme court. No more proof is needed than Filburn that the court is just like every power crazed organization.

And now we get to the foolishness. You ask for an example, I gave you an example which you clearly cannot refute, so you do what typically happens - you complain that there was only one example. If it goes true to form, I will give you more examples, you will claim "Just 3, that's it?" and so on.

Bernie ran, but he did not lose the election. The DNC rigged the election - don't you keep up with the news?

 

Then please state what you DO support, and how that would work in terms of determining what laws/actions are Constitutional. I keep asking you how you think your preferred vision of government would work. You keep refusing to answer.

You ignore the main point, which is that Filburn left it up to the voters to decide whether they agreed or not.

You FURTHER ignore the main point, that without judicial review, a case like Filburn would never even be able to be questioned in the first place: it would be Constitutional by default, unless and until enough people got riled up about it to force lawmakers to change.

In other words, outcomes like Filburn would be the NORM in your preferred world, not the exception.

I addressed your example. So saying I cannot refute it is simply not true.

#1, the internal operations of a private political party do not reflect on our Constitution in any way. A private party is free to choose its candidate any way it wants: through free and open elections, through rigged elections, through picking a random number out of a hat, whatever.

#2, on what basis do you claim that the Democratic primary vote was rigged in a way that meant Sanders' supporters didn't get a vote?

• If your'e referring to the superdelegate system, that was in place before Sanders ever ran. Those were the clearly established rules, not a "rigging" of the election.Do you think they were unfair? Okay. But then I refer you back to Point #1: a private organization can choose its candidates any way it wants. It has no Constitutional implications.
• Hillary won the election in every way you can possibly win it. She got more delegates, she got more actual votes. No matter how much you think the odds were stacked against Sanders, he lost straight up, in every relevant measure.

The fact of the matter is, more Democratic voters supported Hillary than supported Sanders. Regardless of anything the DNC did or didn't do. There is no scenario in which Sanders won.

Heck, the DNC has little control over primary elections, which are run by state and county agencies. They have the most control over caucuses -- which is where Sanders did BEST. How does that square with the DNC rigging things?

 

asdgaasdasdgdasdg

 

I support the Constitution as originally intended. That does not mean - as you seem to assume it means - that life must return to the 18th century, or that slavery must be returned. The Constitution provides for a federal government of adequate power to perform the duties it is assigned.

 

That answer is so general as to be meaningless. Please provide specific answers to my questions.

In your preferred world, how would laws be determined to be Constitutional? What would prevent the government from simply ignoring the Constitution? How would the Constitution be applied to specific cases? By whom? And with what enforcement power?

 

This is an entertainment forum, not a class on history and the Constitution. I have already stated that I support the Founders concept of government as defined by the Constitution. If you want to go into those details, read their letters and the history books. Its a waste of time for me to play middleman.

 

How lame. Typical libertarian bullshit evasion. You want to bitch about the current system, but don't have a better idea. Or you know that your alternative is completely unworkable. Either way, cowardly and lame.

 

Well they said it on Faux news. They're like the internet. Everything is true.