# The constitution is confusing to washington elitist



## billc (Dec 30, 2010)

This is why politicians dislike the constitution, it is confusing.  I mean it is not like it is over a 1000 pages long like some of the bills they deal with. 

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/12/30/which-part-of-the-constitution-is-confusing-ezra/

We should probably just fold it up and put it in the desk drawer  so the politicians and political pundits don't get confused any more.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> This is why politicians dislike the constitution, it is confusing.  I mean it is not like it is over a 1000 pages long like some of the bills they deal with.
> 
> http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/12/30/which-part-of-the-constitution-is-confusing-ezra/
> 
> We should probably just fold it up and put it in the desk drawer  so the politicians and political pundits don't get confused any more.




Why in a drawer? Why not just flush it down the toilet, after Bush wiping his *** with it for seven years???


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 30, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Why in a drawer? Why not just flush it down the toilet, after Bush wiping his *** with it for seven years???


 
what is wrong with you people?
just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.

when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?


----------



## chaos1551 (Dec 30, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> what is wrong with you people?
> just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
> just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
> I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.
> ...



As soon as Proctor & Gamble sells "Take Our Country Back" on Wal-Mart shelves.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 30, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> As soon as Proctor & Gamble sells "Take Our Country Back" on Wal-Mart shelves.


 
which is made in a sweat shop in China....


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 30, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> what is wrong with you people?
> just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?



No.  The point is the selective outrage and concern of those lambasting Obama now for violations of constitutional and civil liberties while supporting those self-same policies under Bush.  Indeed, some of the very same people were arguing then that it was traitorous to oppose the President on these matters.  Now that the President has a different letter after his name, the tune has changed.

I think you will find that many members of Obama's coalition are sorely disappointed and apprehensive about the continuation and extension of Bush-era security policies and violations of liberty.  That doesn't keep those same people however from pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of lambasting Obama for behavior that some defended from Bush.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?



First, in what way do 'we' (I presume you mean US citizens) not have possession of our country?  No one holds elected office that was not elected, and when they lose elections, they leave office.  There are plebiscite votes in various states that ensure that the will of the people is done.  If there is harm being done to our nation and to our Constitution, it is we, the citizens, who are permitting it to occur.  There is no 'they'.  They is us.

Second, presuming our country needed 'taking back', just what are you proposing?  I'd like specifics, if you don't mind.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> what is wrong with you people?
> just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
> just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
> I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.
> ...


They rely on votes. We can do it at any time. Why are we voting for these people, is the question. So, put down your weapon.:mst:
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Dec 30, 2010)

Except for the leftist bent of most universities these days, I would think the best person to be on the Supreme Court would NOT be an attorney but, rather someone who was well versed in 18th century English. 



> "*The  issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was  written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs  from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get  done.*"


 The above quote, from Ezra Klein illustrates why. 
BTW, more than 200 years ago, Ezra...


http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz19dofn3Om​


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 30, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> They rely on votes. We can do it at any time. Why are we voting for these people, is the question. So, put down your weapon.:mst:
> Sean


 
"We" are voting for "these" people because "they" are the only one "they" allow "us" to vote for.  

It's funny that people think that we still actually have a choice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 30, 2010)

The "we don't know what it means" crown is full of ****.

We know. It's a simple document.  The authors published their debates. We know what they were thinking, and when, and they even said how to read it in the future.

They're just lazy and stupid.

How do we take the country back?
By shrinking the government to where it's supposed to be.
By repealing the 17th Amendment and return selection of Senators to the State Governors.
By repealing the 16th Amendment, and return people wealth to them. (BTW, if this was done in 2008. it would have reduced the Fed Budget to 1997 levels)
By removing the Federal Reserve Bank and it's continued botched manipulation of the US economy and authorized counterfitting. 
By recognizing that the States and the people, not the Federal government have the final say in things.
By eliminating the corrupt system of stimulus, subsidy and bailouts.
By requiting that all proposed laws be justified under strict Constitutional guidelines, not the "well, it's implied" crap.
By removing ALL nanny state government programs.

But, that's my opinion.  Maybe dig up Jefferson and Madison and ask them.
I bet it's pretty close to what I just wrote..and I bet their own writings will clearly indicate their opposition to the things I say we should chuck.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 30, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Except for the leftist bent of most universities these days, I would think the best person to be on the Supreme Court would NOT be an attorney but, rather someone who was well versed in 18th century English.
> The above quote, from Ezra Klein illustrates why.
> BTW, more than 200 years ago, Ezra...​


 
More then 200 years ago would include more then 100 years ago.  

Even if that is true, we have extensive documentation from the Founders as to what they meant, personal letters, the Federalist Papers, treatise.  For some reason, I don't see it as being all that difficult.  Maybe it's just me.


----------



## crushing (Dec 30, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I think you will find that many members of Obama's coalition are sorely disappointed and apprehensive about the continuation and extension of Bush-era security policies and violations of liberty.  That doesn't keep those same people however from pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of lambasting Obama for behavior that some defended from Bush.



And Conservatives went through the very same disappointment 8 years earlier.  It's a never ending cycle and reminds me of a political cartoon that was recently posted in another thread:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 30, 2010)

Constitution is what, 19 pages?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 30, 2010)

Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?

  Surely no one wishes to governed by the laws of ancient Greece or even the Magna Carta, even though they both have contributed greatly to our modern democratic system. How is the US constitution any different? A good start but out dated? Or set in concrete and may not be touched?


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 30, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?



It is by necessity open to interpretation and amendment.  The founders certainly recognized that, which is why they included in the document the means for its amendment - not easy, but not impossible either.  It is telling when those who insist that we must follow the Constitution to the letter also insist that any number of amendments should be repealed.  If you just want things run a certain way, then say that - because the Constitution can be made to reflect the will of the people through amendment, to *anything the people desire*.  You may not like what it becomes, and then where will your devotion to the Constitution lead you?

The Constitution is a tool, a very good tool, but like any tool it can be turned to any number of ends both fair and foul.  Better then to develop a higher set of principles then the inerrancy of a particular document. Our history has shown that we are not above ignoring it when we want to - even some of those who wrote the damn thing to begin with!  It was John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Act after all.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> "We" are voting for "these" people because "they" are the only one "they" allow "us" to vote for.
> 
> It's funny that people think that we still actually have a choice.


Did you not have a write in space on your ballot?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?
> 
> Surely no one wishes to governed by the laws of ancient Greece or even the Magna Carta, even though they both have contributed greatly to our modern democratic system. How is the US constitution any different? A good start but out dated? Or set in concrete and may not be touched?


No one is claiming they don't understand, it was those two loudmouths on the news program.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 30, 2010)

Ken,
  The Constitution IS set in stone, -unless- it is amended through the designated means. Otherwise it means exactly what it meant when it was written.  That's Madison and Jefferson's views anyway.  Hamilton's was rather more, ah, open to interpretation. So was Henry Clay's, Abraham Lincoln's, both Roosevelts, as well as most of the Presidents since 1860.  The authors of the US Constitution were rather against the idea of democracy as they understood it to be what it is, 2 wolves voting with a sheep to decide dinner.


As to the vote, that's a sham.  The GOP and DNC have things pretty well locked in their favor, causing any 3rd party options to have to expend large amounts of time and resources to even get on the ballot, while they can violate election laws and still be listed by default. The 2008 election was rife with that, the most glaring case being both the DP and RP missing their filing deadlines for inclusion on the Texas ballots yet being listed anyway, with the Libertarian Party complaint about that being rejected. There are many many other examples.

As designed, the US Federal government is supposed to be small and of low power, with the majority of power resting in the now 50 independent countries that make up the United State's.  Unfortunately, since 1865 the idea has been corrupted and it's now accepted that the States are little more than geographic serfdoms of the all powerful Federal Government, reduced to begging for scraps of their own money back. It's no wonder that states like NY and California are broke and failing.


----------



## crushing (Dec 30, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It is by necessity open to interpretation and amendment.  The founders certainly recognized that, which is why they included in the document the means for its amendment - not easy, but not impossible either.



Amending the Constitution is no longer necessary.  Legislators simply need to claim that an act is for the good of the people and it falls under the General Welfare clause.  If that reason seems specious, then it would be covered by the Interstate Commerce clause.  At one time prohibition required a constitutional amendment, now it could simply be part of a tax act or tacked on to some spending bill.  The States must fall in line, because so much funding is tied to making sure they do so that they don't dare consider nullification of federal laws they don't consider constitutional.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 30, 2010)

From Wikipedia:


> *United States*
> 
> Main article: Taxing and Spending Clause
> The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.  It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare  Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are  exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not  considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal  government as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
> ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 31, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> No.  The point is the selective outrage...



To those who keep leaving me anonymous rep dings without any message to it: why don't you bring your feelings to the thread and we can hash it out like adults?  That would certainly be more useful.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm curious, what is an anonymous rep ding?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 31, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I'm curious, what is an anonymous rep ding?


Its something you will be experiencing a lot of, in your future, I suspect. Don't worry about the red marks on the corner. Think of them as ribbons, or badges. I like you. I don't agree with a word you write but I like you. I think the fact that you bought in to the science fiction of the republican party is a direct result of you being a science fiction buff. Just know there is plenty of fiction coming from both sides. The republican talking points which you spout are usually ignorant of about twenty facts that refute them, and become nothing more than political blips. However, keep up the good work. I know this post isn't going to change you.
Sean


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 31, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It is by necessity open to interpretation and amendment. The founders certainly recognized that, which is why they included in the document the means for its amendment - not easy, but not impossible either.


 
So, because the Framers were smart enough to figure out that they could not forsee every possible thing that could occur in the future, and therefore provided a contingency to change the document, that means that it should be interpreted?  I call B.S.

The amendment process is there so that if there is or is not something in the Constitution that later generations seek to change that we would have a mechanism to change it, for instance, the 17th Amendment and the election of Senators.  They didn't conceive that someone would twist and turn the Constitution to mean what it says.  For instance, they didn't say that although Article 1, Section 3 says that "chosen by the Legislature" could mean that since the State Legislatures is chosen by the people, then in effect, the Senators are chosen by the people, so we can cut out the middle man.  No, they actually had to change the Constitution from it's original meaning.

The way you would have it would make the Constitution meaningless due to the fact that it could then mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  

To be sure, certain of the sections of the Constitution allow for a wide range of options, such as the Fourth Amendment, where we get to debate what a "reasonable" search and seizure is.  But they allowed for that, based on the prevailing conditions confronted by the future Government.  But the expressly did not do that for other parts of the Constitution.



> It is telling when those who insist that we must follow the Constitution to the letter also insist that any number of amendments should be repealed.


 
What is so telling about that?  They want the Amendments repealed, not disregarded.  If it's the law, then it's the law.  But that doesn't mean that they can't be faithful to the execution of the Constitution, while at the same time wanting to change it.  



> If you just want things run a certain way, then say that - because the Constitution can be made to reflect the will of the people through amendment, to *anything the people desire*. You may not like what it becomes, and then where will your devotion to the Constitution lead you?


 
And you have just addressed the point.  The Constitution can be "made to reflect the will of the people _*through amendment*", _not through interpretation.  That about sums up my position, and I think the position of many other people who do not like what our politicians, judicial officers, and bureaucrats have done.




> The Constitution is a tool, a very good tool, but like any tool it can be turned to any number of ends both fair and foul. Better then to develop a higher set of principles then the inerrancy of a particular document.


 
No one has stated that the Constitution is inerrant.  Hence, the ability to change it by amendment.  But, you cannot tighten a bolt on with a hammer, to use your tool reference.  You adopt another tool.



> Our history has shown that we are not above ignoring it when we want to - even some of those who wrote the damn thing to begin with! It was John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Act after all.


 
You are absolutely right when you say that we are not above ignoring it.  And this is done by both sides of the political spectrum.  The fact still remains, however, that it is supposed to be there for the people to address their rights and grievences, not for the politician to manipulate however they see fit.

And so what if John Adams signed the acts which as a whole are considered the Alien and Sedition Acts (there were four).  The Constitution is there specifically to prevent such things, or if they do occur, provide the people a mechanism to address such things.  In your argument, all he, or the court his party appoints, could then choose to "interpret" the Constitution to allow such acts to remain in force.  It is to prevent imperfect people, including John Adams, for devolving our Republic into a dictatorship.

By the way, subsequent Supreme Court Justices have stated that it is likely that the Acts would have been ruled unconstitutional if it had ever reached the Supreme Court.  Not due to an interpretation of what the Constitution says, but because of what it in fact actually says.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2010)

Jefferson's understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted  is made clear in a letter he wrote March 27, 1801, after assuming the  Presidency, "*The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be  administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption,&#8212;a  meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated  (it)...These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time,  and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question*."

James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution and often called the "Father of the Constitution". "*I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in  which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that  sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the  guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and  stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning  of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing  it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must  partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living  languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced  in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in  its modern sense.*"

So, here we have 2 of the Founding Fathers, 1 the author of the Declaration of Independence, the other of the Constitution, basically saying it's not this soft malleable thing of vague clay, but means what it means. Both men as President had a history of strict interpretations and if it wasn't in the USC, tended to not do it. (oversimplified for brevity).

A simple "Where in the USC does it clearly say you can do X?" followed by a "no, not where it's vague and might say it might not say it, but where does it specifically say it" hard line would prevent much of the abuse we've dealt with for over 100 years.

The argument of "well they couldn't foresee that" is easily blunted with "then get an amendment passed to authorize it, other wise you're SOL."

The "Living Constitution" is a fallacy argument. If the highest law of the land is open to interpretation, so is every single law on the books, depending on a cop, judge or politicians whim. I prefer a strict and dependable definition.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 31, 2010)

Ken, it is a document that is open for changes...unless they are changes you don't agree with, then the other side is tearing up the constitution or doesn't understand it.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 31, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Ken, it is a document that is open for changes...unless they are changes you don't agree with, then the other side is tearing up the constitution or doesn't understand it.


As has been stated, it is open for changes and there is a process prescribed for that. There is a reason two thirds of the states have to ratify amendments to the constitution.


----------



## billc (Dec 31, 2010)

5-0 kenpo, Bob hubbard, big don, great posts.  I really appreciate what you guys are saying here, you have done it well.  Have a happy new year.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2011)

Does the fact that the USA is now so much bigger with vastly more people in it than when it was written make it harder to 'use' the Constitution?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Does the fact that the USA is now so much bigger with vastly more people in it than when it was written make it harder to 'use' the Constitution?


It does, but, it should not. The rules shouldn't change just because there are more players in the game, this isn't soccer (football).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2011)

What makes it harder to use is the 100 or so years of propaganda that has the average US citizen thinking that a State is just another geographic political divide like a county line, when in fact the US was intended to operate as 13 (now 50) independent nations with a small amount of power concentrated in a confederation for mutual benefits. (over simplification for brevity's sake).  As the states surrendered more and more power to the Federal, they basically became serfs.  Even the idea of a "National Bank" was against the founders ideals, which is why I have a small collection of currency issued by NY, Virginia, Texas, and several other states from the 1800's, and why the armies from our pre-1865 condition were -State- regiments, not Federal ones.  The British Crown signed a treaty with 13 independent countries, not 1 country, a fact not understood by our own citizens, despite the wording of that treaty. In fact, some argue that the "United States" created the subject states.  



> His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New  Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,  Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,  North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free sovereign and  independent states*, that he treats with them as such, and for himself,  his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government,  propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.



The Articles of Confederation, signed shortly after the war ended, did not surrender that independence. It was dissolved and the Constitution adopted. At no time did the States surrender their independence or sovereignty. The various articles were in fact designed to maintain that, as clauses such as "*The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.*" indicate. If we were 1 united nation, there would not be a need for such. After all, no State constitution had clauses such as "The Citizens of each County shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several Counties." That would be dumb.

I can drive a car in Canada because somewhere, there is a treaty with a clause that says I can. In other countries, I might need to get an International drivers license. (Right?)  But because of that clause I bolded above, I can drive a car in any US State, without having to re-qualify or re-license. Texas will recognize my NY marriage (unless I married a guy, which makes Texas's non-recognition a violation of that clause, which will be clarified in the next 10 years in courts, but I digress).

The problem is, most American's never read the bloody thing, don't take the time to  understand it, or simply take a few sound bytes as gospel. It's sad.  Some of us here arguing have honest disagreements on how to read it, or how to interpret it, but we usually have read it.  I saw a comment from a former Congressman who said many of his fellows admitted to not reading it or being poorly versed on it's history, and these are the people who write laws that are supposed to work within it's limits.

The US Constitution is 19 pages of handcuffs on Federal government, with a small amount of "ok, you can do this" notes.  In the end however it very clearly states: 
"*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*"

"_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution_"
Meaning powers not specifically listed as being the power of the United States

"_nor prohibited by it to the States_"
it being the Constitution. More clearly written would be 'The powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the States' meaning the Constitution specifically says the States can't do it.

"_are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._"
If the US Constitution doesn't specifically say the US Government CAN do it, or doesn't say the States CANNOT do it, then the States CAN do it, or the people CAN do it.

There in is a STRICT read of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Health care, retirement, unemployment, education, medical treatment, and a million other things FAIL this read. They do it anyway, the people let them do it for so long, we know little else. Let em do it long enough it's 'forever' and it's hell to change it.
Which is why we American's argue like crazy over this thing.  Someone here will read this and think I'm nuts, and maybe even disagree with me. Great. Explain it better and I might change my mind. Hell, I used to be a Democrat/Liberal/Save the Whales type in college. Wrote a paper singing Michael Dukkakis's praises too. (That'll shock a few folks I'm sure. LOL).

:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2011)

Doesn't matter. Each time a new party threatens the SQ, the "big 2" make it harder for them to get on the ballots, and work some of their goals into their platforms weakening support.

None of this is however relevant to a Constitutional discussion. Political parties aren't addressed in the USC, though who could vote has been changed and what obstacles they faced modified as well through various amendments.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 1, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Does the fact that the USA is now so much bigger with vastly more people in it than when it was written make it harder to 'use' the Constitution?


 
Tez, I really don't think the population amount really makes it more difficult to use the constitution.  There have always been varying views of the constitution, from the day it was written.  It is written vaguely in certain areas on purpose, but even if it was not, there would be arguement.  It is the nature of human beings and even moreso of politicians.  Heck, I could write, "the sky is blue" and for a lot of politicians that statement is vague and open for interpretation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

The main issue is with an understanding of the phrase "General Welfare".

Again, borrowing from Wikipedia


> *United States*
> 
> Main article: Taxing and Spending Clause
> The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.  It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare  Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are  exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not  considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal  government as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

The argument for Obamacare for example falling under the GWC is one of several current instances where this disagreement of definitions happens.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Definitions of *socialism* on the Web:


a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The view that the government should own and control major industries
www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html


Now, back to the US Constitution and the idea of "Common Good".
Those like Hamilton basically said that the "all powerful Federal Government" (which is how they viewed it, rather than the States calling the shots) could do whatever it felt necessary, as long as it was for the false idea of "the Common Good".  

The problem with "Common Good" is it doesn't exist as somehow a special interest gets the 'better end of the deal'.  This is the case with ObamaCare, where the populace under the mistaken idea that mandating everyone obtain (buy) insurance would cut costs and bring prices down. This isn't what happened as coverage was decreased, premiums rose, and service continued to be as inefficient as before. None of this is expected to change as the system is implemented, other than the companies will see growing profits from forced patronage. The 'Common Good' doesn't exist in this case.

The larger the group, the less likely "Common Good" can survive corruption by Special Interests.

This is why the USC limited the Federal Government to a minimum level of invasiveness, leaving much of the details of operation to the State Level for handling. They are better positioned to determine how to best serve their own citizens.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

*Administrator Notice

This thread has seriously drifted into many tangents.  I've pruned it of any posting NOT directly relating to confusion over the US Constitution. Please restrict your input/debate to US Constitutional matters here.

Thank you.

Pruned posts are being reviewed by staff and are currently locked until staff review is completed.
*


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 2, 2011)

I thought this thread was about both the Constitution and Washington Elitists.  My bad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> I thought this thread was about both the Constitution and Washington Elitists.  My bad.


Yeah, them too.  If I pruned anything that should be brought back, please REPORT the post in the DUMP thread and we will reconsider its inclusion.


----------

