Did you know that the Pentagon is collecting a data profile on you? Its true. Soon the Pentagon military planners are going to have a data file with your name on it. It will include information such as your name, address, race/ethnicity---and even your GPA and other school-based statistics as well as information they can glean from consumer marketing techniques.
Does that creep you out?
Read more from our partner EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They've just released a fact-packed memorandum; if you have a deeper interest in this issue, you need to check it out.
Does that creep you out?
Read more from our partner EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They've just released a fact-packed memorandum; if you have a deeper interest in this issue, you need to check it out.
EPIC Releases Memorandum on DOD Recruiting Database, Privacy Act Violations
posted by Hans Riemer at 2:56 PM
54 Comments:
Does EPIC know that it has "partnered" with you? I find no mention of you on their site. My guess is that Bureaucrash is a far closer partner with EPIC than you are. After all, the best way to avoid the military establishment harassing young people for "service" would be to end government schooling of children thereby depriving the federal government of control over america's youth. This is something I suspect Crock The Vote would oppose but which would be a big win for freedom and privacy advocates everywhere.
Along those lines, I would encourage anyone reading this to look into home schooling and/or private schooling if you really want to avoid this kind of government harassment. It's less likely that your name will end up on DOD lists this way since your learning institution won't be forced to violate your funding in return for federal funding like government (public) schools.
I don't care that the Govt. has files on me, they can't make me sign up. I know what your going to say....What about the draft? Never happen, scare tactic, Govt. doesn't want a draft anymore then you or I do.
What the Govt. can do is take my house and sell it to a private entity for the "Good of the community". Where is Rock The Vote's outrage over that?
Why are they more concerned with the Govt. collecting info on people which employers do on a regular basis as opposed to tackling the real issues?
I agree with Noid on his statement that the Govt. should release control over the school system.
Every business the Govt. runs turns to shit.
Previous commenters that try to ties this data collection to government schools would be well served to read the material EPIC put on its site: the data is collected from both government and private sectors, public and private school students are in this database. The database gets data from the selective service system, state motor vehicle departments, and commercial data brokers.
QUOTE:
Previous commenters that try to ties this data collection to government schools would be well served to read the material EPIC put on its site: the data is collected from both government and private sectors, public and private school students are in this database. The database gets data from the selective service system, state motor vehicle departments, and commercial data brokers.
/QUOTE:
Government (public) schools are also required to allow recruiters to give talks to students and recruit during school time if they want federal funding for which they all whore themselves. But just because there exist private schools that do give out info to military recruiters doesn't change the fact that you generally will be far more free to avoid recruiter harrassment if you don't attend government schools where in addition to being forced to be recruited to during school time, children also are subject to forced drugging thanks to Bush's "No Child Left Behind" aka "No Child Left Undrugged" or being charged with a felony for sticking up for themselves when harrassed by bullies.
The simple fact is, government schools are increasingly dangerous places for so many reasons and caring parents everywhere ought to look for any way possible to rescue their children from them.
Also, yes I understand that private databases are used by recruiters as well, but in general people have more choice as to whether they wish to submit information to private entities and in instances where there is little or no choice available, it most likely is the result of government regulations.
QUOTE:
Why are they more concerned with the Govt. collecting info on people which employers do on a regular basis as opposed to tackling the real issues?
/QUOTE:
There's a lot of reasons, including resenting the government systematically dehumanizing me by recording all kinds of information about me both needlessly and without my permission and inevitably making it public through having no ability to maintain anything like security regarding said information. But for those who honestly feel completely comfortable with total strangers having access to your personal information including purchase habits, political beliefs, address, date of birth, gpa, classes taken, and biometric information even though it is part of who you are and none of anyone's business save those you want to know it, the main reason you should still not be comfortable with your personal information being so public is that it makes ID theft so much easier. When the state creates an environment in which people are required to give all their personal information to every pitiful little bureaucrat that asks for it with no justification for why it's needed under penalty of ostracism and increased suspicion, it's no wonder that the simplest and most pathetic of "phishing" attacks is so successful. By making a habit of creating huge databases of everyone's personal info and requiring that everyone submit their info, it greatly facilitates ID theft and makes its consequences devastating. So for security reasons alone, we should demand that governments require as little info on us as is necessary, justify their information requirements, keep seperate security systems seperate, and discourage private use of information relevant to government security systems.
Another thing I'd like to add is that despite how many people will say how they have nothing to hide and are fine with these sorts of databases, when they actually see the kinds of information that private and public databases have one them and how nonchalantly it get passed around, most people are outraged. People just generally feel like it's hopeless to complain about it and doing so makes them look suspicious feel powerless.
Noid, why do post here? You clearly hate Rock the Vote---you called them "Crock the Vote". You disagree with everything they say. Yet you sit here, day after day, waiting for Rock the Vote to put up a blog so you can run in on it.
Rock the Vote seems to have a very, very small but highly dedicated group of attackers who are taking out all their anxieties, paranoias, and grievances on Rock the Vote.
it seems to me that EPIC's point about the recruiting database is that it wouldn't matter whether you were in a public school or home schooled. It wouldn't matter whether you signed up to get informaiton about enlisting or not. The Defense Dept. will gather information about you, make a profile, and figure out how to recuit you.
...children also are subject to forced drugging thanks to Bush's "No Child Left Behind" aka "No Child Left Undrugged" or being charged with a felony for sticking up for themselves when harrassed by bullies.
The simple fact is, government schools are increasingly dangerous places for so many reasons and caring parents everywhere ought to look for any way possible to rescue their children from them.
In that first instance, the problem is with the law itself, not with schools. Why not rally against that problematic law and try to fix things, instead of just saying, "Abandon all hope for public schools"? "Caring parents" need to educate their children about the risks they could possibly encounter at ANY school they might attend, be it public or private.
Furthermore, the age range that DOD is collecting dada from is 16-25. That comprises a lot more college-age students than high schoolers. Whether you attend a public or private college or university, the amount of marketing information potentially collected about you is the same. Marketers don't seem to differentiate between public and private colleges; regardless of how much tuition they charge, they're all regarded as hotbeds of precious data on America's youth.
"dada," haha. Obviously I meant "data." Freudian slip in the midst of all this absurdity.
QUOTE:
it seems to me that EPIC's point about the recruiting database is that it wouldn't matter whether you were in a public school or home schooled. It wouldn't matter whether you signed up to get informaiton about enlisting or not. The Defense Dept. will gather information about you, make a profile, and figure out how to recuit you.
/QUOTE:
The DoD will certainly *try* to get your info regardless of where you go to school but since public schools get federal funds and are hence beholden to the federal govt, they pretty much *have to* give the DoD whatever it wants. You have far more say in what your private school does since their money comes from you. And if you homeschool, you'll have total say in what you give the DoD if they even know to contact you. You honestly can't see how you have more control over your personal info when you're not on a public school's lists?
QUOTE:
In that first instance, the problem is with the law itself, not with schools. Why not rally against that problematic law and try to fix things, instead of just saying, "Abandon all hope for public schools"? "Caring parents" need to educate their children about the risks they could possibly encounter at ANY school they might attend, be it public or private.
/QUOTE:
No the problem is with schools. schools aren't gonna give up federal funds regardless of how much you complain. They don't have to please you in order get your money. They just care about satisfying federal demands so that they can get federal funds. In a private schooling or homeschooling environment, I can handle my problems with school policies by either taking my business elsewhere or setting the policies myself, respectively.
P.S. Getting the DoD to respect privacy laws is equally futile. You can read examples of this on EPIC's site. :)
QUOTE:
Noid, why do post here? You clearly hate Rock the Vote---you called them "Crock the Vote". You disagree with everything they say. Yet you sit here, day after day, waiting for Rock the Vote to put up a blog so you can run in on it.
Rock the Vote seems to have a very, very small but highly dedicated group of attackers who are taking out all their anxieties, paranoias, and grievances on Rock the Vote.
/QUOTE:
Initially I started posting here to correct misinformation in Crock the Vote's ridiculous posts on socialist insecurity, and decided to stay to correct b.s. in their other posts.
It really seems like some of the so-called liberals would figure out that voting and democracy/majority rule is what got you into all these problems to start with. Mandatory programs, wars, etc. are all to blame on the majority. Maybe you should figure out that the forcing of people into collectivist programs like social security and war taxes is a violation of privacy rights. This is not a free country. That is not my government and it doesn't have to be yours. Greater good my ass. I'll do my own thing, thank you very much!
Oh grow up. What type of loser wants to stay home and be schooled by their mommy?
" And if you homeschool, you'll have total say in what you give the DoD if they even know to contact you."
The DOD is not really getting that much info from the school, but from third parties such as data brokers, DMV's and the selective service system. You really don't have much choice as to what data brokers do with your data, at least in the unregulated data-land of America. In Europe, you have more choice, as these data-brokers are regulated.
noid said: No the problem is with schools. schools aren't gonna give up federal funds regardless of how much you complain. They don't have to please you in order get your money. They just care about satisfying federal demands so that they can get federal funds. In a private schooling or homeschooling environment, I can handle my problems with school policies by either taking my business elsewhere or setting the policies myself, respectively.
What about colleges? I want to hear your stance on that. Or are you suggesting home schooling for higher education too? That would go over quite well in the medical field, for certain. You can't just run away from the problem by telling people to seek other options.
hey noid... no mention of Rock the Vote on EPIC's site?
http://www.epic.org/privacy/student/doddatabase.html
QUOTE:
hey noid... no mention of Rock the Vote on EPIC's site?
http://www.epic.org/privacy/student/doddatabase.html
/QUOTE:
Well I guess I don't know if it was there yesterday as it is the last organization mentioned at the very bottom of the page but congrats. Also, I don't know to what extent I'd consider a link under "Organizations Concerned About the Database and Military Recruiting" at the bottom of the page the same as a partnership but I'd rather try letting them know about Bureaucrash, and other pro-liberty sites than argue that with you.
QUOTE:
What about colleges? I want to hear your stance on that. Or are you suggesting home schooling for higher education too? That would go over quite well in the medical field, for certain. You can't just run away from the problem by telling people to seek other options.
/QUOTE:
My suggestion was for people in K-12, not colleges, though as I've stated before on this site, I don't think the federal govt has any business subsidizing student loans for the same reason I don't think Bush has any business picking which brokers or stocks are acceptable investments in his vague social security plans. Namely, it gives the federal government the power to attach strings to those programs thus letting the federal govt force us to accept military research and recruiting on our campuses and invites all kinds of corruption.
I hate how people generally referred to as "liberals" will bitch about the military/educational complex but not see that it's the very existence of federal subsidies that makes it all possible. Read that link above: "a provision inserted into the No Child Left Behind educational act, Section 9528, now requires public and private schools receiving federal educational funds to release secondary students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters who request them. (20 U.S.C.S. ?7908)" This is the kind of stuff that happens when you take money from someone, be they parents or the govt. It inevitably comes with strings.
QUOTE:
Oh grow up. What type of loser wants to stay home and be schooled by their mommy?
/QUOTE:
I doubt you have any experience all of the wonderful choices and options homeschooling allows for but I'll say this much: at least homeschoolers don't need to ask permission to use the potty. ;-P
QUOTE:
The DOD is not really getting that much info from the school, but from third parties such as data brokers, DMV's and the selective service system. You really don't have much choice as to what data brokers do with your data, at least in the unregulated data-land of America. In Europe, you have more choice, as these data-brokers are regulated.
/QUOTE:
I'd have to know more about exactly what their processes are but my *guess* is that the first place they go to get lists of names would be the schools and the selective service lists (which are mandatory before you can apply for federal loans) I think they'd probably use the private data later to get a more complete profile of the people they already have. If someone can provide more detail in this regard, I'd be happy to hear about it.
According to EPIC, three things they get from colleges that would be of particular use would include: field of study, graduation date, and GPA. *I* think that's pretty invasive.
According to EPIC, three things they get from colleges that would be of particular use would include: field of study, graduation date, and GPA. *I* think that's pretty invasive.
GPA, graduation date, and field of study.
How terrifying. Big brother must REALLY be watching over me now! */sarcasm*
Honestly, this just shows that some people have entirely too much time on their hands to bitch about things that do not need to be bitched about. It's your freaking GPA for crying out loud. It should only be a concern if your GPA sucks. So you know what, go fix your GPA, this ought to give you a nice incentive to do so, so the military doesn't laugh at you when they see a 1.5 GPA on their computer screen. SEE! It's an incentive!
Now watch somebody take THAT way too seriously, just like they take things like a stupid government survey of students too seriously.
Wow, it was great visiting the Noid blog...
I love how libertarians bitch about federal subsidies and government programs, but call 911 when their house is on fire. All those federal dollars going to waste! A real libertarian would call one of the local competing firehouses and ask for a quote to have the fire put out! ;-)
I, as a liberal, don't hate the military. I hate the *use* of the military. A good military for defense is one thing. What we're spending money on now is another thing entirely.$401 BILLION dollars for the military (not including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq)? That's excessive. So there's an area we can take money out of and put back into peoples' pockets. It wouldn't hurt to work on eradicating hunger and homelessness with some of the savings either.
Also, supporting our military is one thing. Supporting the use of personal information to target-market a career in the military to certain demographics of youngsters is another thing entirely. The NCLB clause is an excellent example.
As for the draft: I still think its a possibility, should something go wrong in another part of the world and we get involved. We're not filling the ranks as it is. Heck, now we're asking middle-agers to enlist. Still, I don't think there's a good possibility, just a slight one. I'm not worried about it.
As for home-schooling, its not a bad idea; except for the pesky part of keeping the father/mother home to do the actual teaching! Most people have jobs. I will say that there's nothing wrong with home-schooling, though. Its just not feasible in a lot of homes.
Anyways, had to feed the resident troll. Enjoy, Noid! BTW: did you choose the name because so many people want to avoid you (AKA the cheesy old Dominoes commercials: "Avoid the Noid!") Makes sense to me.
Boy do I love liberals. This is a classic statement:
"I, as a liberal, don't hate the military. I hate the *use* of the military"
There is a nice cushy job awaiting you on the Kerry '08 campaign. Are you, by chance, the person who came up with the quote, "I voted for the 80 billion dollars after I voted against it."
BRILLIANT!!
shawn - just a small footnote, the Constitution is pretty straight forward in the creation of a standing army to protect the nation, and along with that the power to tax in order to pay for that army. However, I do not see where the framers of the Constitution gave politicians the power to use force to take money from citizens to pay for social programs.
"However, I do not see where the framers of the Constitution gave politicians the power to use force to take money from citizens to pay for social programs."
Try article I sec. 8, re: "the general welfare."
QUOTE:
"However, I do not see where the framers of the Constitution gave politicians the power to use force to take money from citizens to pay for social programs."
Try article I sec. 8, re: "the general welfare."
/QUOTE:
Actually what that phrase is really talking about is "things which benefit every american" like roads, the military etc. i.e. not one segment of the country to the exclusion of all others so all your precious social programs aren't authorized by that clause, or for that matter, any other.
QUOTE:
As for home-schooling, its not a bad idea; except for the pesky part of keeping the father/mother home to do the actual teaching! Most people have jobs. I will say that there's nothing wrong with home-schooling, though. Its just not feasible in a lot of homes.
/QUOTE:
It would be a lot more feasible if parents could actually take the property tax money that the state takes from them and spend it themselves as they see fit to educate their children, but even while having to pay for public schools whether they use them or not, there is still huge growth in the number of home schoolers. And it's becoming even more feasible with the creation of homeschool cooperatives and internet support groups:
http://www.maybewewouldbeamazed.com/coops.html
It's amazing how many wonderful solutions
are possible with the free market, even as people are subjected to more and more oppresive regulation and taxation (which bush has made much more *complex*).
QUOTE:
GPA, graduation date, and field of study.
How terrifying. Big brother must REALLY be watching over me now! */sarcasm*
Honestly, this just shows that some people have entirely too much time on their hands to bitch about things that do not need to be bitched about. It's your freaking GPA for crying out loud. It should only be a concern if your GPA sucks. So you know what, go fix your GPA, this ought to give you a nice incentive to do so, so the military doesn't laugh at you when they see a 1.5 GPA on their computer screen. SEE! It's an incentive!
/QUOTE:
It never ceases to amaze me how people insist that if you want to keep something about oneself private, that it must be something *bad*. One of the reasons I don't want government (or direct marketing people for that matter) having that information on me precisely because it's stuff that they would consider *good*. If I could get my school to tell anyone I don't authorize to see my information that I have a 0.1 GPA and am majoring in marxism, I'd be somewhat pleased with that insofar as I assume no one would want to sell me anything without my having asked for it first.
Of course another perfectly justifiable reason to not want my information disclosed without my knowledge or consent is that its none of your or their damn business unless I say it is.
anon: "Try article I sec. 8, re: "the general welfare.""
noid: "Actually what that phrase is really talking about is "things which benefit every american" like roads, the military etc. i.e. not one segment of the country to the exclusion of all others so all your precious social programs aren't authorized by that clause, or for that matter, any other."
Ten points to noid! I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Actually what that phrase is really talking about is "things which benefit every american" like roads, the military etc. i.e. not one segment of the country to the exclusion of all others so all your precious social programs aren't authorized by that clause, or for that matter, any other."
Those of us who live in cities and don't have cars, or are peaceniks don't find roads or the military to benefit all of us.
But we do all get social security. If this means social programs can't means test, and we should all get food stamps, all get defense contracts, etc . . . then I'm all for your interpretation.
I think we can decide, via the elected branches, what is in the general welfare though. You vote for your belief, and I'll vote for mine.
QUOTE:
Those of us who live in cities and don't have cars, or are peaceniks don't find roads or the military to benefit all of us.
But we do all get social security. If this means social programs can't means test, and we should all get food stamps, all get defense contracts, etc . . . then I'm all for your interpretation.
I think we can decide, via the elected branches, what is in the general welfare though. You vote for your belief, and I'll vote for mine.
/QUOTE:
So your position is that the meaning of the constitution *should* be determined by majority rule? You clearly have no understanding of what a constitution and a republic are supposed to do and be.
Secondly, not everyone gets social security or for that matter is even in the system. You have to enroll, and enrolling isn't even mandatory for anything with the possible exception of deducting children for tax purposes. That's right. If you are careful to say no to a checkbox on your child's birth form saying that you don't want to be part of the "enumeration at birth" program, and that child doesn't sign up later, s/he can live and work without an SSN. The Amish live this way, for example. You would have to ask the IRS for a TIN if you don't have a religious objection but you definitely don't need an SSN. That said, private organizations like lenders don't have to lend you money without one but usually you can get by with a TIN.
Thirdly, while by roads I meant the interstate highway system, after reading up on the framers views on this clause, you're right, I don't think roads would be justified by this clause either because roads aren't "general". However, the military establish is "general" because *any citizen* on U.S. soil and their U.S property is defended by attack by the military establishment and this is precisely why the "general welfare" clause is appended to the sentence authorizing spending on a military.
P.S. I think a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would authorize the interstate highway system since it is arguably necessary/extremely helpful to have a uniform set of rules and roads for trucking necessary for interstate commerce.
www,socialslavery.com
Also, if you actually wanted to interpret "general welfare" as "whatever would be a good idea for the country in the eyes of congress" as you seem to, not only would your interpretation be in conflict with the founders, you'd also be negating the purpose of the constitution. Why don't you think about exactly why the 10th amendment is there, OK? Thanks.
Key Democrats Supported Social Security Accounts in 2001
The Hyde Park Declaration set goal for creation by 2010.
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century
Full Document : http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926
We believe in shifting the focus of America's anti-poverty and social insurance programs from transferring wealth to creating wealth.
5. Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old
An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.
In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.
Goals for 2010
• Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
• Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.
• Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.
Signatories include:
Evan Bayh, United States Senator, Indiana
John Breaux, United States Senator, Louisiana
Lee Brown, Mayor, Houston, Texas
Bob Buckhorn, City Councilman, Tampa, Fla.
Tom Burroughs, State Representative, Kansas
Kevin Cahill, State Assemblyman, New York
Ken Cheuvront, State Representative, Arizona
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio
Pat Colwell, State Representative, Maine
Kathleen Connell, State Controller, California
Marti Crow, State Representative, Kansas
Donald T. Cunningham Jr., Mayor, Bethlehem, Pa.
Wayne Curry, County Executive, Prince George's County, Md.
Jim Davis, United States Representative, Florida
Dan DeMarco, Commissioner of Ross Township, Pennsylvania
Dana Lee Dembrow, State Delegate, Maryland
Calvin Dooley, United States Representative, California
Douglas M. Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County, Md.
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, Illinois
Jeff Gombosky, State Representative, Washington
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, California
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, Pa.
Daniel Grossman, State Representative, Colorado
Lars A. Hafner, State House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Florida
Bob Hagedorn, State Representative, Colorado
Karen Hale, State Senator, Utah
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, Florida
Scott N. Howell, State Senate Democratic Leader, Utah
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblyman, New York
Calvin Johnson, State Representative, Arkansas
Paula F. Julander, State Senate Minority Whip, Utah
Ember Reichgott Junge, State Senate Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota
Delores G. Kelley, State Senator, Maryland
John F. Kerry, United States Senator, Massachusetts
Kwame Kilpatrick, State Representative, Michigan
Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, Louisiana
Thomas Lazieh, City Councilman, Central Falls, R.I.
Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator, Connecticut
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, United States Senator, Arkansas
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone County, Idaho
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, Conn.
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, Pennsylvania
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, Delaware
Stan Matsunaka, State Senator, Colorado
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, Kentucky
Tom Miller, State Attorney General, Iowa
Bobby Moak, State Representative, Mississippi
James P. Moran Jr., United States Representative, Virginia
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York
Ed Murray, State Representative, Washington
Janet Napolitano, Attorney General, Arizona
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, Md.
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, Massachusetts
John D. Porcari, State Secretary of Transportation, Maryland
David Quall, State Representative, Washington
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, Colo.
John Riggs IV, State Senator, Arkansas
Antonio R. Riley, State Representative, Wisconsin
Stacy Ritter, State Representative, Florida
Charles Robb, United States Senator, Virginia
Carroll G. Robinson, City Councilman, Houston, Texas
Tim Roemer, United States Representative, Indiana
Linda J. Scheid, State Senator, Minnesota
Allyson Schwartz, State Senator, Pennsylvania
Kathleen Sebelius, State Insurance Commissioner, Kansas
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, Florida
Ellen O. Tauscher, United States Representative, California
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, Georgia
Tom Vilsack, Governor, Iowa
Kirk Watson, Mayor, Austin, Texas
J.D. Williams, State Controller, Idaho
Philip Wise, State Representative, Iowa
Jane Wood, State Representative, New Hampshire
anon, so the interstate system doesn't help you? Why don't you go ask your local market owner how his crop is doing this year or how his dairy farm is producing in the heat of summer? Sound crazy? Thats because all consumer goods are transported by way of the interstate system. So, if your city doesn't see a need for such ridiculous expenses then please petition your local Senator and ask that the highway funds for your state be diverted to my state of Texas. We have a growing population and business base here in my state due to low taxes and property rights, so we need more roads for the general welfare.
I love how your mind works, you obviously see a new directive for the government to redistribute money based on two words 'general welfare' and yet declare the military an optional expense when the Military funding is explicitly stated in the Constitution while Social Security and the various other social programs Democrats love are not.
"So your position is that the meaning of the constitution *should* be determined by majority rule?"
Some parts of it are best left to the political branches. In constitutional law, there's a concept of what is a political question that courts should leave alone. "general welfare" is, I believe, one of those.
If not, I think we can have rational basis review of what is in the general welfare. And lots of social programs have a rational relation to the general welfare, which is not to say that there are counter arguments. Lots of social programs also have interstate commerce connections: food stamps buy goods in interstate commerce, for example.
"I think a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would authorize the interstate highway system since it is arguably necessary/extremely helpful to have a uniform set of rules and roads for trucking necessary for interstate commerce."
"arguably"? its quite clear that it is helpful. I think when it was first proposed, hiways were defended, at least politically, on their merits for national defense.
For all of us: peacenick amish and warlike red stater.
QUOTE:
"So your position is that the meaning of the constitution *should* be determined by majority rule?"
Some parts of it are best left to the political branches. In constitutional law, there's a concept of what is a political question that courts should leave alone. "general welfare" is, I believe, one of those.
/QUOTE:
No, only when the courts sign off on something's constitutionality is it then supposed to become a political issue. Only when the courts think congress actually has constitutionally granted power to pass legislation is it then supposed to leave congress to do what it wants. The court is not supposed to leave constitutional interpretation to congress. Of course, today it might as well considering how it's attitude pretty much seems to be that the feds can do whatever it wants. But prior to FDR packing the court so that he could do whatever he wanted, the court shot down his socialist crap as it should have been and should be today.
But why don't you read the framer's views on what they meant "general welfare", read the 10th amendment, and then think real hard about why they'd put the 10th amendment in the constitution if "general welfare" meant whatever the f--- congress wanted it to.
QUOTE:
If not, I think we can have rational basis review of what is in the general welfare. And lots of social programs have a rational relation to the general welfare, which is not to say that there are counter arguments. Lots of social programs also have interstate commerce connections: food stamps buy goods in interstate commerce, for example.
/QUOTE
No no no. Again, read what the framers said about the phrase "general welfare". It was meant to limit any proposed government expenditure to those which were national in scope to avoid having money spent in a manner favoring one group or geographic area. In other words, if congress wants to spend money on a national defense, it can't leave out defending North Carolina.
It has nothing to do with giving congress the power to create social programs let alone to do whatever it thinks is generally good since that would make having a constitution pointless.
Here are some quotes to help you:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
QUOTE:
"I think a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would authorize the interstate highway system since it is arguably necessary/extremely helpful to have a uniform set of rules and roads for trucking necessary for interstate commerce."
"arguably"? its quite clear that it is helpful. I think when it was first proposed, hiways were defended, at least politically, on their merits for national defense.
For all of us: peacenick amish and warlike red stater.
/QUOTE:
It's not just being helpful in general, but rather that it's helpful in "making interstate commerce regular" which is how the framers meant "regulate interstate commerce". In other words, the framers only wanted the feds to have the ability to standardize inherently interstate commerce rules and business practices. So no, food stamps don't have anything to do with interstate commerce and neither does any other social program.
Noid, your quotes are very nice. Unfortunately, those are not what was ratified. What was ratified was text that said "general welfare" and "regulate commerce among the states."
I have no idea where you get your "make regular" dreams.
"In other words, if congress wants to spend money on a national defense, it can't leave out defending North Carolina."'
Can it defend a group that doesn't want to be defended?
QUOTE:
Noid, your quotes are very nice. Unfortunately, those are not what was ratified. What was ratified was text that said "general welfare" and "regulate commerce among the states."
I have no idea where you get your "make regular" dreams.
"In other words, if congress wants to spend money on a national defense, it can't leave out defending North Carolina."'
Can it defend a group that doesn't want to be defended?
/QUOTE:
My quotes of madison and jefferson are very nice, very well considered, and incredibly important to understanding how the constitution ought to be interpreted by the court. See, the court generally concerns itself with such things as precedent and intent of law when ruling. When contemporary vocabulary differs from that which was used to write the constitution, the court is supposed to interpret the law based on original intent, referring to previous precedents and writings of the framers.
This way, when dumbf---s like you want to try to call something constitutional by redefining a constitutional phrases like "general welfare" or "regulate", the court should look to what the phrases really mean by looking at those who wrote the law or amendment for definition.
QUOTE:
Can it defend a group that doesn't want to be defended?
/QUOTE
Yes, because it's one of the fed gov's enumerated powers and furthermore, repelling any foreign invader is truly in every person's "general welfare"
QUOTE:
I have no idea where you get your "make regular" dreams.
/QUOTE
The Federal Commerce Power
Among the enumerated powers granted the federal government was the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The need for commercial regulation at the national level was one of the key reasons for the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, a weak federal government had been powerless to prevent self-serving and protectionist commercial legislation by the states, with ruinous economic consequences. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, the leading constitutional treatise of the early 19th century, Justice Joseph Story spelled out those consequences:
[T]he want of any power in congress to regulate foreign or domestic commerce was deemed a leading defect in the confederation. This evil was felt in a comparatively slight degree during the war. But when the return of peace restored the country to its ordinary commercial relations, the want of some uniform system to regulate them was early perceived; and the calamities, which followed our shipping and navigation, our domestic, as well as our foreign trade, convinced the reflecting, that ruin impended upon these and other vital inteests, unless a national remedy could be devised. . . . Measures of a commercial nature, which were adopted in one state from a sense of its own interests, would often be countervailed, or rejected by other states from similar motives. . . . These evils were aggravated by the situation of our foreign commerce. . . . Our trade in our own ships with foreign nations was depressed in an equal degree, for it was loaded with heavy restrictions in their ports. While, for instance, British ships with their commodities had free admission into our ports, American ships and exports were loaded with heavy exactions, or prohibited from entry into British ports. We were, therefore, the victims of our own imbecility. . . . It was further pressed upon us, with a truth equally humiliating and undeniable, that congress possessed no effectual power to guaranty the faithful observance of any commercial regulations; and there must in such cases be reciprocal obligations.(13)
The federal commerce power was designed to remedy those evils by allowing the federal government sufficient power to police and preempt self-serving state regulation and to treat with other sovereign nations on an equal basis--which meant, among other things, the power to make international trade agreements stick. The term "regulate" was thus meant in its contemporary sense, "to make regular," as distinct from its more common modern meaning, "to control."(14) Early Commerce Clause cases, even those that took a fairly expansive view of federal power, made that point clear. The most important such case was the famous "steamboat monopoly" case of Gibbons v. Ogden.(15)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html
"See, the court generally concerns itself with such things as precedent and intent of law when ruling. "
I can see how original meaning of words is important. But not the unratified quotations of some statesman. Are we so lawless as to hold that to be what guides us? something 1 man spoke, and which no others voted on?
"the court should look to what the phrases really mean by looking at those who wrote the law or amendment for definition."
Why the writers? Why not those who ratified? Aren't the writers rather meaningless in the whole scheme of things?
"The term "regulate" was thus meant in its contemporary sense, "to make regular," as distinct from its more common modern meaning, "to control."(14)"
It would help if this citation went to a case, rather than a law review. Its really hard though, because we didn't see much commerce clause cases post gibbons, till the late 19th century.
QUOTE:
"See, the court generally concerns itself with such things as precedent and intent of law when ruling. "
I can see how original meaning of words is important. But not the unratified quotations of some statesman. Are we so lawless as to hold that to be what guides us? something 1 man spoke, and which no others voted on?
"the court should look to what the phrases really mean by looking at those who wrote
the law or amendment for definition."
Why the writers? Why not those who ratified? Aren't the writers rather meaningless in the whole scheme of things?
/QUOTE
The writers and ratifiers were generally the same people but also, looking at Jefferson's and Madison's writings as well as court precedent clarifies the definitions of phrases like "general welfare" and "regulate interstate commerce" since they were the most prolific writers of the time and thus are good people to look at when trying to pin down definitions and original intent.
I'm glad that you at least acknowledge the importance of not letting legislators redefine traditional constitutional terms since this is frequently how congressmen from both the left and the right seek to pass unconstitutional legislation.
QUOTE:
"The term "regulate" was thus meant in its contemporary sense, "to make regular," as distinct from its more common modern meaning, "to control."(14)"
It would help if this citation went to a case, rather than a law review. Its really hard though, because we didn't see much commerce clause cases post gibbons, till the late 19th century.
/QUOTE:
Actually the right has most recently abused this misunderstood phrase by passing legislation to interfere with states rights to allow people to grow their own medical marijuana. They justified this by saying they needed to do so to control (their desired control being a ban on) interstate commerce of marijuana. But if you consider the original intent as being "to make regular" clearly this clause doesn't justify a ban on anything like drugs at all. This is why in the early 20th century, prohibitionists were at least honest enough to acknowledge a need to amend the constitution to ban alcohol. Our present federal government wouldn't think twice about just passing a law with a simple majority vote in congress and having that be the law. So clearly our current federal government has exceeded its authority on both issues dear to the left and the right.
"The writers and ratifiers were generally the same people but also"
The ratifiers are the state legislatures in all the states. The writers are different, a few men in philadelphia. In the case of madison, 1 man.
"But if you consider the original intent as being "to make regular" clearly this clause doesn't justify a ban on anything like drugs at all."
That's very nice. But i'm not going to pick this interpretation just because it would override this idiotic republican congress.
"Our present federal government wouldn't think twice about just passing a law with a simple majority vote in congress and having that be the law"
They'd probably just use the spending power. That's how the national drinking age was set.
QUOTE:
"The writers and ratifiers were generally the same people but also"
The ratifiers are the state legislatures in all the states. The writers are different, a few men in philadelphia. In the case of madison, 1 man.
/QUOTE:
"Mr. Madison was again a member of the Virginia Assembly, from 1784 to 1786, where he was the champion on of every wise and liberal policy, especially is religious matters. He advocated the separation of Kentucky from Virginia; opposed the introduction of paper money; supported the laws codified by Jefferson, Wythe, and Pendleton; and was the author of the resolution which led to the convention at Annapolis, in 1786, and the more important constitutional convention, in 1787. He was a member of the convention that formed the Federal Constitution, and lie kept a faithful record of all the proceedings of that body, day after day. 3 After the labors of the convention were over, he joined with Hamilton and Jay in the publication of a series of essays in support of it. These, in collected form, are known as The Federalist. ***In the Virginia convention called to consider the constitution, Mr. Madison was chiefly instrumental in procuring its ratification, in spite of the fears of many, and the eloquence of Patrick Henry.*** He was one of the first representatives of Virginia in the Federal Congress, and occupied a seat there until 1797." (emphasis mine)
http://www.colonialhall.com/madison/madison.php
So Madison authored the constitution, was instrumental in its ratification in the largest state's legislature and helped write the Federalist defending it to other
legislatures. I'm sorry, but I think any fair minded person would acknowledge that he's a good person to look to for interpretation.
QUOTE
"But if you consider the original intent as being "to make regular" clearly this clause doesn't justify a ban on anything like drugs at all."
That's very nice. But i'm not going to pick this interpretation just because it would override this idiotic republican congress.
/QUOTE:
No, this intepretation should be picked because it was the original intent as I have demonstrated. After observing that, it is then clear that much of what many congresses has passed is unconstitutional.
QUOTE:
"Our present federal government wouldn't think twice about just passing a law with a simple majority vote in congress and having that be the law"
They'd probably just use the spending power. That's how the national drinking age was set.
/QUOTE:
"I'm sorry, but I think any fair minded person would acknowledge that he's a good person to look to for interpretation."
I and justice scalia would disagree. Its undemocratic to look at the unratified and unvoted on words of 1 man, when 13 (50 now) states have ratified the constitution.
"No, this intepretation should be picked because it was the original intent as I have demonstrated. "
Demonstrated? You linked to a cato website, that linked to a law review article!
I provided direct quotes from the author of the constitution (Madison) who was responsible for its ratification in our then largest and most populous state as well as from the author of the declaration of independence (jefferson) who both agree with my interpretation of the "general welfare" clause. And it was ratified by 13 states, not 50, dumbass. The article I gave you on the interstate commerce clause had references to relevant cases prior to 1900 which demonstrated that "regulate" means "to make regular" not "to control".
The most recent case where the court said interstate commerce included marijuana control (Ashcroft v. Raich) was decided 6-3 with Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist on *my* side. On your side are the same justices who think it's fine for walmart to partner with any governmental body and steal people's homes under the name of eminent domain (KELO v. New London) just because it will mean more taxes collected (decided 5-4). Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Stevens have carried on a 75 year supreme court takeover from the FDR administration which has destroyed the whole notion of a limited federal government that existed prior. This is why the logical conflict between the way the federal government undertook prohibition and the way it has undertaken the drug war exists
QUOTE:
and justice scalia would disagree. Its undemocratic to look at the unratified and unvoted on words of 1 man, when 13 (50 now) states have ratified the constitution.
/QUOTE:
Who cares if its undemocratic? We are supposed to live in a republic, not a democracy.
"Who cares if its undemocratic? We are supposed to live in a republic, not a democracy."
I meant democratic in the sense of voted on and representative. In the same way its unrepublican.
"I provided direct quotes from the author of the constitution (Madison) who was responsible for its ratification in our then largest and most populous state as well as from the author of the declaration of independence (jefferson) who both agree with my interpretation of the "general welfare" clause."
I know who those guys are. They're still just 2 people who cast votes of all the people who cast votes.
I have no idea why authoring the declaration of independence makes you the interpreter of the constitution, any more than anyone else who voted for it.
"And it was ratified by 13 states, not 50, dumbass."
When you join the union you have to accept the constitution.
"The article I gave you on the interstate commerce clause had references to relevant cases prior to 1900 which demonstrated that "regulate" means "to make regular" not "to control".
"make regular" appears twice in that article. Once in linking to a law review article, and once in saying what the framers SHOULD have written. Its a bad piece of constitutional interpretation to argue that your interpreation is what they should have written when they wrote something else.
Its hard to say that one should adhere to a certain original design when one notes that this design leads to different language in the constitution.
Get it through your thick skull. I'm talking about the ******definitions***** of constitutional terms and phrases, and looking at the author of the constitution and other important framers for definitions is the sensible thing to do. Why don't you try to find *anyone* from back when the document was ratified that believes that "general welfare" meant "the feds can do whatever the hell you want, if it sounds like a good idea to a majority in congress". The fact is, that your view just doesn't make *any* sense when considering the 9th and 10th amendments, and the whole purpose of the constitution
Oh, and when it says "should have written" it's saying that if the framers wanted to say in our language what they intended, they should have written "regulate" thus and so. Just because nutjobs like you have turned the definition of regulate into meaning "control in any way congress wants" doesn't make your view any more constitutional.
"Get it through your thick skull. I'm talking about the ******definitions***** of constitutional terms and phrases, and looking at the author of the constitution and other important framers for definitions is the sensible thing to do"
Why just the authors? Why not the definitions of everyone who voted to ratify it? Why not look at what those words meant generally back then? That's what people were voting on: words in the constitutional text. They weren't voting on what madison thought those words meant. They were voting on those words. Look at the general meaning of those words then, not the unratified intent of madison.
"Oh, and when it says "should have written" it's saying that if the framers wanted to say in our language what they intended, they should have written "regulate" thus and so."
The article doesn't make that distinction, between "our language" and their language. It says their proposed phrasing is the better one that the framers should have made. Not a good sign.
Madison played a key role in getting a consensus and the eventual ratification of the Constitution, so dismissing his interpretation would be unwise. Besides, much of the dissent over the document that became our constitution had little to do with interpretation or meaning of words, but rather a strong set of opinions over state's rights and state's representative in the US Senate. If only the framers knew then that congress would later amend the Constitution to do away with the majority of state's rights and all of their federal representation in the Senate.
Point is, Madison was instrumental, don't take his words lightly on the subject of our constitution.
Post a Comment
<< Home