Quote :

"Price Defends Earmarks News & Observer, March 26, 2008 U.S. Rep. David Price says earmarks have gotten a bad rap. In a speech before the Cary Chamber of Commerce this morning, the Chapel Hill Democrat said the recent debate over Congressional earmarks has blown them out of proportion. Price argued that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress "the power of the purse," including the right to direct spending. He cited several local projects, including a town water reclamation facility, that were needed. The issue with earmarks is not spending, since most of the money would be appropriated anyway, he said. Instead, he said, it has been a lack of transparency and "road to nowhere" projects that were not worthy. "This earmark process has become kind of a bugaboo and it's going to figure in some of the campaigns," he said. "Everybody should take a deep breath." "

Now that the Dems are in charge of the nation's purse-strings...we just need to take a breath and stop complaining about pork-spending. The taxes that are being ripped from us were going to be spent anyway...what's the problem?

Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress no authority to build roads for any specific state, or fund any college projects, or convert hog-waste lagoons. The General Welfare clause means that the Congress acts on behalf of the entire country, and not funding projects - no matter how worthy- for individual states and districts.

If the feds weren't sucking so much money away from us, our state might be able to build a water reclamation facility without their help.


http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/price_defends_earmarks_in_cary

3/26/2008 10:04:59 PM

I guess everybody has forgotten about the whole "powers not given to the federal gov't belong to the state" part of the constitution.

3/26/2008 11:11:26 PM

you must be referring to Amendment X

part of the Bill Of Rights

the part of the Constitution that we supposedly MOST hold dear

3/27/2008 12:02:04 AM

Most of the things that the federal government does are in violation of the 10th amendment. I guess the constitution doesn't matter to most people.

3/27/2008 6:18:10 AM

Another states rights war a brewin' in the south.

3/27/2008 6:26:16 AM

Just because they weren't given written direct authority to do something does not mean they do not have the authority to do it.

[Edited on March 27, 2008 at 8:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2008 8:49:56 AM

Quote :

"Just because they weren't given written direct authority to do something does not mean they do not have the authority to do it."

It's interesting that a lot of people hold this opinion. In fact the Constitution wasn't set up to give gov't carte blanche to do whatever it wanted. On the contrary, it gave the fed gov't very specific jobs, and then amended it to remind everyone that any job not specifically given the feds was to remain with the states or the people.

The thing we have to control the gov't from absolute tyranny is the fact that the founders did not give govt authority to do anything it wanted.

If you reject this principle, you deserve your fate.

3/27/2008 10:09:41 AM

better give back the Louisiana Purchase to France then.

3/27/2008 10:10:28 AM

rofl, dont forget alaska

3/27/2008 10:12:06 AM

Earmarks have in fact been substantially reduced under the Democratic Congress. I guess you bought into GW "born-again fiscal conservative" Bush's grandstanding at the State of the Union.

Quote :

"If the feds weren't sucking so much money away from us, our state might be able to build a water reclamation facility without their help. "

Without the help of the Federal Government, water reclamation would be inconsistent and spotty, and tied up in a backlog of similar interstate disputes at SCOTUS.

3/27/2008 10:27:58 AM

everybody hates earmarks except their own....and EarthDogg

3/27/2008 10:30:19 AM

Technically, the Founding Fathers did give Congress authority to do whatever they want in the ability to create amendments. The Constitution was the framework for how they wanted to country to be shaped and is still almost completely relevant to today, but they certainly allowed for it to be 'amended.'

That said, I don't think the federal government should use that reasoning to grab up all the power it possibly can. Minimal federal government is definitely ideal, I think. The problem lies in different peoples interpretation of minimal federal government. It means vastly different things to different people.

3/27/2008 10:34:36 AM

I think most people just have an issue with so much money going to the federal government that are not being spent on "federal" projects. If the money is going to be spent at a local level, then I would rather pay the taxes to the city/county or perhaps the state.

Why should my money go to pay for something in New Orleans or Chicago or Utah or wherever?

3/27/2008 3:39:34 PM

Quote :

"better give back the Louisiana Purchase to France then."

... and Hawaii.

Quote :

"President Jefferson endorsed the purchase but believed that the Constitution did not provide the national government with the authority to make land acquisitions. He pondered whether a constitutional amendment might be needed to legalize the purchase. After consultations Jefferson concluded that the president's authority to make treaties could be used to justify the agreement. Therefore, the Louisiana Purchase was designated a treaty and submitted to the Senate for ratification. --from The Law Enyclopedia"

At least Jefferson felt a tinge of Constitutional guilt, something that no longer troubles today's politicians such as David Price.

Quote :

"Earmarks have in fact been substantially reduced under the Democratic Congress."

That's not my point.

I'm just pointing out the sheer arrogance of politicians like Price, who think they have the authority to spend a Californian's fed tax-money on a drainage project in North Carolina.

3/27/2008 8:16:30 PM

Quote :

"Technically, the Founding Fathers did give Congress authority to do whatever they want in the ability to create amendments. "

Yes, and that's fine. They also made it a rather cumbersome process so that we'd have to be deliberate and really sold on the idea before we gave the Feds the authority to do it.

For quite some time, though, we've pretty much said "Fuck it", and completely ignored the Constitution. We don't even bend the rules anymore--we completely disregard them to the point that the Constitution is pretty much irrelevent.

Except for when we decide that it's convenient for our cause, in which case we freely invoke it.

3/27/2008 8:33:43 PM

i bet a lot of the ear marks are good things...like infrastructure type shit

3/27/2008 9:03:23 PM

you have completely missed the point

3/27/2008 9:08:49 PM

i didnt read anything...thats just my opinion on earmarks...i think some of them are prolly good

3/27/2008 9:09:35 PM

Yes, they're beneficial, but the point is that the taxes for them should be going to the state/local government, not the federal, and it should be the state/local governments that are conducting these projects.

3/27/2008 9:18:21 PM

well, some of them shouldn't be conducted at all, some should be conducted by private entities if they really want them, a lot should be conducted by local and state governments, and very, very, very few should be conducted by the federal government.

3/27/2008 9:22:35 PM

Quote :

"i didnt read anything...thats just my opinion"

...and why are we not surprised?

3/27/2008 9:36:09 PM

Quote :

"Just because they weren't given written direct authority to do something does not mean they do not have the authority to do it."

ummm. Actually it DOES mean that, fucktard. 9th and 10th FTW!

3/30/2008 9:25:19 AM

Quote :

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is the ninth. It does nothing to stop the US government from doing things.

Quote :

"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."

That also doesn't prevent the US Government from doing anything either.

3/30/2008 12:18:34 PM

Quote :

"That is the ninth. It does nothing to stop the US government from doing things."

Yes it does - it implies that not all rights of the people are enumerated explicitly. Which does prevent the government from treading on rights not explicitly enumerated. It's not a strong impediment to the power of the government, but it does in fact act as a (slight) constraint.

Quote :

"That also doesn't prevent the US Government from doing anything either."

Uh, actually, it does. Outside of the "implied powers" clause (i.e., "necessary and proper"), it pretty plainly says - "If the power isn't explicitly given to the FedGov here, it is implied to revert back to the states and the people, respectively - not to the Federal Government." It's a pretty bright line, in fact.

[Edited on March 30, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : Ninth]

3/30/2008 1:14:51 PM

Quote :

"That also doesn't prevent the US Government from doing anything either. "

Then what exactly in the hell does the 10th mean?

3/30/2008 2:30:05 PM

^

4/1/2008 11:18:08 AM

The 10th Amendment reserves rights for the States. No where in the 10th amendment does it deny powers to the federal government.

Quote :

"Yes it does - it implies that not all rights of the people are enumerated explicitly. Which does prevent the government from treading on rights not explicitly enumerated. It's not a strong impediment to the power of the government, but it does in fact act as a (slight) constraint."

It only says that the constitution does not deny rights to the people. That has absolutely nothing to do with the powers of the State.

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/1/2008 11:23:08 AM

Quote :

"The 10th Amendment reserves rights for the States. No where in the 10th amendment does it deny powers to the federal government."

Then how exactly do you define the term "reserved?" Because it seems to be pretty apparent otherwise - the powers are reserved for the states and people, respectively. As in, "Do not belong to the Federal Government." There are very few ways you can read that term save for ignoring it entirely without coming to that conclusion.

Quote :

"It only says that the constitution does not deny rights to the people. That has absolutely nothing to do with the powers of the State."

So the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the powers of the Federal Government? Would have fooled me.

4/1/2008 11:27:11 AM

Quote :

"everybody hates earmarks except their own....and EarthDogg"

4/1/2008 11:29:00 AM

For starters, the government acts on the will of the people. The people is a collectivist term and the government is the collective will of the people. The government is only constitutionally prevented from doing things that the constitution enumerates.

4/1/2008 11:32:46 AM

That is totally and completely incorrect. You may actually want to try reading the Constitution. Specifically, Article I, Section 8 for starters.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

4/1/2008 11:35:21 AM

You can't be serious. The first part is "powers not delegated to the United States", and in that clause they mention the United States, the States and the People. If the People and the United States are the same things, then why make that distinction? The constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, reserves specific powers for the states and leaves everything else to the states and the people to work out. The federal government though is never supposed to have more power than that delegated in the constitution, hence "powers not delegated".

4/1/2008 11:38:16 AM

Quote :

"general welfare of the United States"

4/1/2008 11:40:13 AM

I wonder what the Price of those earmarks is, huh? Get it? Huh, do ya?

I've got a million of 'em. Well, not really--just that one.

4/1/2008 11:44:21 AM

that may be the most, uhh, creative interpretation of law that I've ever seen, and that says a lot in this country.

I have more respect for the "Fuck the Constitution, let's just do it this way" position. At least then you're being honest (in a sense) and upfront, although still despicable.

4/1/2008 11:48:22 AM

the courts have ruled variously in such ways from social security to medicare.

4/1/2008 11:50:23 AM

Quote :

"come on, what am I gonna do, just jump up and grind my feet into somebody's couch like it was somethin' to do?"

Quote :

"yeah i remember grindin' my feet into his couch"

Quote :

"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.""

Quote :

"No where in the 10th amendment does it deny powers to the federal government. "

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

4/1/2008 12:01:50 PM

The tenth amendment does not restrict the power of the government.

4/1/2008 12:03:15 PM

Quote :

"the courts have ruled variously in such ways from social security to medicare."

TONIGHT ON POWER GRAB:

When Checks and Balances Fail

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ^ neither does anything else in the Constitution, or anything else, as best as I can tell]

4/1/2008 12:04:04 PM

the powers of the government are restricted, but not to the extent people think they are.

Taht is why we have state laws and federal laws to further restrict the ability of the government.

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2008 12:06:20 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WIsou0IRIQU

4/1/2008 12:25:49 PM

Quote :

""general welfare of the United States""

Quote :

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different arts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

James Madison beat you to it in Federalist #41 over 200 years ago. Unless, of course, one of the chief authors is now wrong, too.

4/1/2008 1:07:51 PM

Quote :

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition. -Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, letter to George Washington,15 February 1791 "

Some may think they have a more accurate interpretation of the 10th amendment. For my money, I'll stick with Jefferson's.

4/1/2008 1:21:59 PM

who gives a shit what they think about it. They lived over 200 years ago. The realities on the ground have changed a shit ton since then.

4/1/2008 1:36:26 PM

Yeah, fuck written laws. And going to all that trouble of "amending" - we'll just ignore laws we don't like.

Except when Bush says exactly the same thing you do. Then it's not cool.

4/1/2008 1:51:49 PM

There is a big difference between violation of rights and morals and violation of non-existent rules.

4/1/2008 1:59:59 PM

Pray tell, which rules don't exist? The ones you choose to ignore due to "circumstances on the ground?"

Well hey, look at that - also exactly what Bush says. Surprise!

4/1/2008 2:02:32 PM

does it matter what the founders would have thought about the interstate highway act, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. etc. No, it doesn't matter one fucking bit.

Bush on the other hand blatantly violates rights and protections assure by the constitution. Do not confuse the two.

4/1/2008 2:07:54 PM

Look, you get to ignore the rules and accept the consequences or don't. Whining about how it's "different" because Bush ignoring the rules isn't cool the way you do it is not one of your options.

It doesn't matter what the Founders think of all the above acts because a simple mechanism exists for amending the scope of the Federal Government and its powers - it's that "A" word. A... mend? Amendment?

4/1/2008 2:10:03 PM

There is a major difference between ignoring rules that exist and ignoring rules that do not exist. If you cannot understand that, then god have mercy on your soul.

Your claim that that is how it is, does not hold when the supreme court has ruled to the contrary. Now get me a coke.

4/1/2008 2:21:34 PM