Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (14773)	4/5/2012 8:21:42 PM
From: TopCat	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"How much more central planning can you get than the constitution of the United States?" What???

To: koan who wrote (14773)	4/5/2012 8:22:08 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	3 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

How much more central planning can you get than the constitution of the United States? Even the name "United States" implies that we are a union of states; each with it's own state consitution rather than a centrally planned society like the Soviet Union. In fact until Woodrow Wilson and FDR came along the Federal government was fairly powerless. You might want to re-read the tenth ammendment to the US Constitution: en.wikipedia.org 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 Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." [2] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers. [3] However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were anxious to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary: I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. [4] The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights. [5] [6] The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.

To: koan who wrote (14773)	4/5/2012 8:31:10 PM
From: Farmboy	3 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

That one line remark, koan, demonstrates much more about your thinking process than you'll ever know. It also speaks quite clearly to your genuine lack of knowledge about your own government. I now see why you so often provide such 'off the wall' answers here. You simply aren't capable of anything better.

To: koan who wrote (14773)	4/5/2012 11:23:53 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Central planning has very little to do with the constitution of the United State. The US constitution calls for federal power to be divided, and for states to have powers independent of the federal government, with the states powers have fewer limits (the federal powers are "limited and enumerated", the states have general police power, "the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"). Also the constitution doesn't try to plan the economy, or provide a great deal of detail about even what the government does. It lays out the powers, not what the government should do with them. It creates limits for the center. See en.wikipedia.org and esp. en.wikipedia.org which you will see forwards to "economic planing". Central planning is trying to control the economy through some centralized plan. The connection to the constitution is close to non-existent.

To: koan who wrote (14773)	4/6/2012 9:51:51 AM
From: sm1th	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

How much more central planning can you get than the constitution of the United States? Have you ever read it? There is no central planning in the constitution, quite the opposite. It defines a federal govt of limited powers and gives everything else to the states. It is just about the most decentralized govt imaginable. You truly are clueless.