What does the US Constitution actually do?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Just curious what you guys think.

[bishop]

nice circular logic there vic.

the choices are the same thing! the act of granting the government power includes setting limits on that power. if there were no limits, it would be assumed that the government had unlimited power.

sorry if i couldn't grasp the deep intentions you must've had.

[Gorgo]

He's not curious what anyone thinks, first of all. He's just blowing hot air once again.

The answer is both, I agree. The Constitution is the document that its creators used to create the United States.

[Chris the Chees]

The US constitution does both.

It grants certain powers to the government, while restricting it on other matters. After all the "founding fathers" were well aware that a balance needed to be found. Alexander Hamilton in particular can be noted for his support for centralised government, yet the US constitution was clearly created to protect property owners from the state and the majority. Which is why the US system is the way it was for years, with an elected house of representatives and a state appointed senate. A clear attempt to limit the power ability of the masses to make decisions without the approval of the land owning elements that ran the individual states. Only at the turn of the last century did the senate become an elected body .

So while it is clear that the US government and its constitution certainly wanted to limit the restrictions on the property owning element of society, it also saw the need for centralised government, and the constitution reflects that accordingly.

James Madison; I think said it best; “Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”

A rather apt display of peoples thinking at the time.

[Gorgo]

And Madison did say that the purpose of the Senate (and some say he meant the purpose of government) was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."

[Mr.Vicchio]

ACtually it's not circular logic, it's a legit question. One that judges your belief. What does the constitution do. Give, or limit?

If you say give, then you feel all power is derived from the government.

If you say limit, you believe all power is derived from the governed.

[Pooeypants]

They're not mutually inexclusive of each other, therefore I have taken the liberty of adding the option "both". After all, it could be, "grant limited power to the government", unless you meant unlimited power.

[PatrickHenry]

Your poll is worthless, Vicchio.

Amendment Ten:

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.

Note that powers ARE delegated to the US. Note also that such as are NOT so delegated are limited to others.

Presently the constitution functions as a smokescreen for unconstitutional government. The Feds swear to uphold it, then ignore it at times of their choosing and are not restrained by the court system.

Men bolder than I established the current structure, but cowards like me and you Vicchio, allow it to mutate uncontrolled. We shall apparently deserve the Empire we are receiving.

[Pooeypants]

Actually, I've just looked up the definition for express(ly), and two of its definition is;

Exactly representing; exact. Directly and distinctly stated; declared in terms; not implied or left to inference; made unambiguous by intention and care; clear; not dubious; as, express consent; an express statement.

So your two choices are technically the same.

[Chris the Chees]

Could a moderator alter my vote please? I origionally voted for the "limit" option, with the introduction of the both option, I would like to change my vote accordingly.

[bishop]

hey vic, how about this... next time you start some seemingly idiotic poll, toss in a little disclaimer at the beginning. something that mentions that you have some deep ideas that you don't want to divulge just yet.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Again you are looking at the literal definition. which was not the point. Again, you CHOSE to make a change and killed the poll, based on your opinion. Again, you decided what the point should be. Which is not your job. You edited based on your opinion, thus you edited my thoughts, based on your opinion. Abuse of power. You should lose moderator power.

If I don't use literal definition from a dictionary, where do I look? Tell you what, show me a dictionary definition where express(ly) means the opposite of

Exactly representing; exact. Directly and distinctly stated; declared in terms; not implied or left to inference; made unambiguous by intention and care; clear; not dubious; as, express consent; an express statement.

And I will change the poll back to the way it was.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Okay last try...

The poll had one question, two answer to choose from.

What does the Cosntitution do?

1. Grant power to the Government

2. Restrict power of the Government

There, is a basis for debate to begin with. Posters could debate on which is the more correct view of the Constitution. Which was the original purpose of the poll.

The answer given, would show where the poster feels power comes from.

Option 1, meant you felt power CAME from the government.

Option 2, meant you felt power came FROM the people.

This was my intent.

I did not add "both" becase doing so would ruin the debate. With the both option up, there is no debate, because on a semantic level, both ARE correct. The question I was trying to spur, and thus foster debate, was which is the MORE correct.

I got this from my political science class, it was the very first thing the Prof did, as I explained earlier.

This was an attempt to create debate based on perception, not litteral correctness. Which is why, agian there was no option for "both" By adding an option for both, the posters are given the easy way out.

I am sorry that this was not clear to anyone, which is how you have to start this kind of extensional thought exersize, but I really did have a reason for how I started this debate.

[Pooeypants]

Your original words options are and I quote;

Expressly Grants powers to the Government Sets limits on the Government

Now that you have actually given thought to the thread and explained it clearly, I can edit the options to two distinct options.

However, are you claiming that the constitution doesn't grant restricted power to the gov't? If not, then why not? Does the gov't have unchecked power?

[Mr.Vicchio]

There we go, Pooey, we can get to some meat to debate over :)

Sorry I went off like that but you caught me at a bad moment to start with.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio There we go, Pooey, we can get to some meat to debate over :) Sorry I went off like that but you caught me at a bad moment to start with.

I'm glad you've made a structured post to start a debate. No hard feelings.

[Gorgo]

What is power? And if people give power to the government, and the government is charged with giving power, then where does power come from? After the people give it power, it comes from the government.

If I belong to a group and cede power to the group, where does the power come from?

I'd have to say both, but where do I go to get my license plates? The government.

[Mr.Vicchio]

But where does the government get that power FROM?

Teh consent of the governed

[bishop]

again, in the act of bestowing powers upon government, you also limit those powers. if there was no limit to the government's power, you wouldn't even need the constitution because the gov's power would be limitless.

asking where government's powers come is a different topic than what the constitution does. people give the government power - the constitution defines those powers and their boundaries.

[Gorgo]

The original question that we were talking about, V, was about private property. Maybe it would help if you would expound on your ideas of where things like private property and rights come from.