Maybe it is just me, but I see the Constitution as something that is evolving and was intended to be such a document. I think and the US Supreme Court would agree with me that health care issues can be included in the functions of the federal government. It has shown to be for quite awhile. Now if you would like to go back to America pre-civil war that is another thread.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
delayed birth certificate
- Thread starter flaja
- Start date
Maybe it is just me, but I see the Constitution as something that is evolving and was intended to be such a document. I think and the US Supreme Court would agree with me that health care issues can be included in the functions of the federal government. It has shown to be for quite awhile. Now if you would like to go back to America pre-civil war that is another thread.
Werbung:
As to the original topic, yes there is the ability to get a copy of a birth certificate as Obama has provided and has been verified and certified by the state of his birth, Hawaii.
I simply dont understand this hoopla over a birth certificate. Many original birth certificates are lost for a variety of reasons are lost to the ages. Mine included.
I have a notarized official copy of my birth certificate that does not look like the original document.
The last thing that is being largely overlooked as is the case with most of the various conspiracy wingnuts is that the fail to understand, is that before he was ever elected to the US Senate is that a generally secret and very thorough background check as to his eligibility to hold such an office was conducted by the appropriate intelligence agency to confirm this. Easily done by FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc, etc.
I simply dont understand this hoopla over a birth certificate. Many original birth certificates are lost for a variety of reasons are lost to the ages. Mine included.
I have a notarized official copy of my birth certificate that does not look like the original document.
The last thing that is being largely overlooked as is the case with most of the various conspiracy wingnuts is that the fail to understand, is that before he was ever elected to the US Senate is that a generally secret and very thorough background check as to his eligibility to hold such an office was conducted by the appropriate intelligence agency to confirm this. Easily done by FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc, etc.
catsmtrods
New Member
Well this is my first post and likely to be my last. I've been hanging around testing the water. I see we have a bunch of libs here with LOTS of time on their hands and one track minds. Trash, belittle and in general be the mean, angry, nasty and rude people that all liberals are.
The fact of the matter is that yes anyone can get a fake birth certificate. My father changed the date on his so he could delay his retirement and worked till he was 85!
Another fact is that if it looks like a duck, quacks and smells like a duck. Its a duck! Obama is no American!
The fact of the matter is that yes anyone can get a fake birth certificate. My father changed the date on his so he could delay his retirement and worked till he was 85!
Another fact is that if it looks like a duck, quacks and smells like a duck. Its a duck! Obama is no American!
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
And you're upset by this...this fabricated crap that the 'right winged nut jobs' just keep regurgitating due to lack of anything with substance...WONDERFUL.
I see where that might cause the simplistic thinkers some mental constipation! EASY COME-EASY GO...don't let that door hit ya where the good LORD SPLIT YA
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I hope that was not your last post. Welcome to the HOP incase its just your first
He didnt fake a copy of his birth certificate, he has never shown anyone that. He put on the internet a copy of his certificate of live birth. That is something very different than a birth certificate. More like a baptism paper and interestingly it has photoshop watermarks on it.
It would not matter to the followers of obama if he were legal or not. If obama admitted he were not born here his followers would just say the rule about being born here is a stupid and outdated rule created by white racists.
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
POM-POM debris littering the forum AGAIN...LMAO
Gipper
Well-Known Member
I hope that was not your last post. Welcome to the HOP incase its just your first
He didnt fake a copy of his birth certificate, he has never shown anyone that. He put on the internet a copy of his certificate of live birth. That is something very different than a birth certificate. More like a baptism paper and interestingly it has photoshop watermarks on it.
It would not matter to the followers of obama if he were legal or not. If obama admitted he were not born here his followers would just say the rule about being born here is a stupid and outdated rule created by white racists.
So true. But I will add they much prefer a president born in Kenya. Libs love political correctness and cultural diversity. What is more diverse and PC than a black Muslim Kenyan president? It's just so cool.
And besides, its all George's fault anyway.
The purpose and meaning of the general welfare power was open for debate from the very first. Even Madison and Hamilton, who both wrote some of The Federalist Papers, did not agree on what it meant. Fortunately for the country Hamilton’s view won out. Contrary to what libertarians believe the Constitution was written to be interpreted so it can be adapted without risking amendment that could completely destroy the document. The Constitution's adaptability gives it stability and stability is the hallmark of conservatism. Libertarians want a level of rigidity that would invariably lead to revolution because the strong would eventually oppress the weak.
Based on information that Obama himself provided?
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Tears, we will miss your nothing of value posted and tin foil thinking
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I hope that was not your last post. Welcome to the HOP incase its just your first
He didnt fake a copy of his birth certificate, he has never shown anyone that. He put on the internet a copy of his certificate of live birth. That is something very different than a birth certificate. More like a baptism paper and interestingly it has photoshop watermarks on it.
It would not matter to the followers of obama if he were legal or not. If oma admitted he were not born here his followers would just say the rule about being born here is a stupid and outdated rule created by white racists.
you should just stop talking and digging a hole to show you don't know what your talking about, go learn facts, then slink away from this debate as you will see it was proven very long ago...you just don't want it to be proven.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
any more deep thoughts to share?
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Correct, Madison and Hamilton did not agree on its meaning. But their separate opinions on the matter, were very close, especially when compared to some of the loony "interpretations" floating around today.
James Madison held that the General Welfare clause had absolutely no impact whatsoever. It did not grant Congress any additional authority for anything, he said - Congress was authorized to exercise ONLY the powers EXPLICITLY spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments.
Alexander Hamilton believed that the General Welfare clause did authorize Congress to exercise additional powers that were not explicitly spelled out in the rest of the document. But even Hamilton maintained that these additional powers were extremely limited: Only powers that benefitted all Americans equally, were authorized to the Federal govt by the GW clause. Powers that might benefit only selected groups, or individuals (what we now call "special interests"), were still forbidden to the Fed in Hamilton's view. Madison, of course, agreed with this last.
In a Supreme Court case in the 1930s (I believe it was US v. Butler), the Supremes ruled that Hamilton's view was the correct one. The GW clause authorizes the Fed to engage in programs that equally benefitted all Americans, even if they weren't spelled out in the Constitution... but the Fed was forbidden to involve itself in programs that benefited only partial groups or individuals.
Contrast that to the loony left's view that the GW clause authorized the Fed govt to do anything it pleased, anywhere and to any extent, as long as somebody benefitted someplace. If that were true, the Framers wasted their time writing most of the rest of the Constitution, because the powers it specifically authorizes could ALL be granted to the Fed under such a huge "Welfare clause". Obviously, this was not the Framers' intent, and the Supremes agreed it was not, in that 1930s case.
That's one of the weirdest and most self-contradictory statements I've heard about "interpretations" of the Constitution, and I've heard a lot of them.
Only a very few parts of the Constitution are left open to "interpretation". They are well known: What are "unreasonable" searches and seizures; what is "probable cause", etc. These interpretations are left to judges to decide on a case by case basis.
The idea that it can be adapted by further "interpretation", goes flatly against both the letter and spirit of the document. As the Supremes have pointed out many times, the idea of such flexible adaption, would obviate the very purpose of having a written Constitution in the first place. It would create chaos (as we are seeing increasingly today) as one official interpreted it one way today, then another interprets it differently tomorrow, etc.
Even if just one group (such as the Supreme Court) were in sole charge of all such "interpretations", the chaos would continue as they "interpret" one way today, let the country align its activities to that "interpretation", and then "interpret" it a different way in a month, or a year, or in a decade. The very principle of "stare decisis" comes from the grim agreement that changing a previous decision carries grievous costs, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. (This sentiment was noteably absent after FDR's attempt at packing the Court, when it started overruling its previous decisions wholesale and implementing policies that violated the Constitution it was sworn to uphold. The senitment returned, though, once the new socialistic policies were in place, and the leftists rediscovered a desire to see them remain as they now were.)
The backbone of the Constitution, is the idea that the powers of the Federal govt are limited to those granted by the Constitution (including the slightly expanded powers supported by Alexander Hamilton), and that it may have NO OTHER POWERS unless the Constitution is formally amended by procedures laid out in Article 5 of that document.
Permitting the bizarrely flexible power to change the Constitution by "interpretation" as you have described, would not reduce the risk of "amendment that could completely destroy the document" as you claim. Formal amendments could still be proposed and ratified. But the flexible "interpretation" you seem to want, would merely add another avenue to destroying the document, even more easily. If there were no other reasons to shun such bizarre "flexibility", that would be a good one. But there are plenty of other reasons to reject it, too.
If that were true, it would be the purest nonsense. Fortunately, that bizarrely extreme "adaptability" doesn't exist, except in the minds of a few government-uber-alles fanatics who hate the restrictions the Constitution places on Federal power.
As I have pointed out, such extreme "adaptability" would directly destroy the very "stability" you claim to want, and lead only to chaos.
catsmtrods
New Member
well you libs sure proved my point. angry, mean spirited, rude...so typical. about obama being an American, what makes you think so? is it his friends ( i only wish i had done more - Ayers, or his reverend - not god bless America - god damn america, or his lovely wife - who for the first time in her life had any pride in her country because her homey was in the race? or is it his admitted communist czars?? ) well, at least we know he's of liberal ilk..."you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". angry, mean spirited, rude.
Make them "bray" in 2010.
Make them "bray" in 2010.
Werbung:
Based on what I have been told by the libertarian fringe on the net this is not the case.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
Spelling has not been updated or otherwise corrected. Emphasis added.
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
“The National Legislature has express authority ‘To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare’ with no other qualifications than that ‘all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and ‘general Welfare.’”
“The terms ‘general Welfare’ were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the ‘General Welfare’ and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”
So Hamilton made no claim that Congress could use only the powers expressly listed for it by the Constitution when it comes to providing for the general welfare of the United States. Therefore Hamilton concluded, “It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.”
The only restriction that Hamilton placed on Congress’ general welfare power is that the power can only be used to benefit the entire nation, not just part of it, and Hamilton was speaking in terms of geography, rather than people.
Similar threads
