Constitution Lectures 3: The Powers of Government (HD version)
Posted by admin on February 28th, 2010
The Federal government does not have any powers unless it is given to them by the Constitution. This lesson explains why, how it works, and what the consequences are. If you’re worried about the Federal government taking too much unconstitutional power, you can write Congress to support the Enumerated Powers Act which, as of this writing, has 60 cosponsors in the House (HR 450) and 23 in the Senate (S 1319): secure.downsizedc.org
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
It’s a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, if you want to put it that way.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
@shanedk:
So by your definition. The US is a democratic republic? Like most “western” countries?
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Yeah, I’ve never understood how so many people arguing for the “rule of law” will not only NOT apply it to government, but insist on what is effectively political anarchy.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation.”
It’s funny how riled up mjr256 gets when his faith is attacked. He will try anything to keep government on a pedestal which he can bow before and worship. The shear hostility he has for mentioning the idea that government should be expected to follow the law is mind boggling.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Yeah, that must be why you have to resort to insults instead of rational arguments…
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“in a poli sci class”
Who cares. A freshman poli sci class is NOT academia. Your class doesn’t get to define words for the entire world. You are simply incorrect in you assertions.
In case you missed it, the Supreme Court has ruled that a republic has “equal rights” and is “chosen by the people”. In “US vs Cruikshank” and “In re Duncan” respectively.
So go tell the Supreme Court that they are wrong and your political science class is right.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Yes, despite the overly litigious society we live in, no1 in the entire country really cares except Shane, Glenn Beck & their small band of merry men. That’s it. Just the way the evil conspiracy wants it. It couldn’t possibly be that other people, particularly legal scholars & people who actually practice law for a living, have a firmer understanding of the law. Nope, Shane’s the true expert here. No room for reasonable & civil disagreement. The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
no, in a poli sci class when someone uses the word republic it is understood that it is a state that has no monarch as head of state and permits citizens to vote for representatives or policy or both. Just because the chinese call themselves a republic doesnt make it so, much like the democratic republic of east germany wasnt democratic. Using 18th century definitions in a 21st century conversation doesnt work if the definition has changed.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“I find it hard to believe there isn’t a loop hole or something you missed that allows for these powers”
In the words of George Carlin: Everyone has a phone which rubs their balls and makes flap jacks, so no one wants to rock the boat.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“Madison’s definition was a bit more nuanced than that”
Yeah, I had that in the original message, but it got cut trying to get it down 500 chars. It’s good that you mentioned it for anyone that doesn’t know and is interested.
I also had a part about in present day America a Republic has been defined by the supreme court to have “equal rights” and “be chosen by the people”. In “US vs Cruikshank” and “In re Duncan” respectively.
P.S. I have been watching Red Dwarf ever since your comment earlier
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Madison’s definition was a bit more nuanced than that. I go into this a bit, but basically an oligarchy is too few representatives per population size and democracy is too many. Too few representatives, they’re easily swayed by special interests. Too many, and the people can vote whatever they want.
Republic is the sweet spot in the middle.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
No, people just don’t seem to know or care anymore.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
I like these videos and they are very informative, but I do wonder if all of these things are truly unconstitutional why are they not challenged? I find it hard to believe there isn’t a loop hole or something you missed that allows for these powers
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“In academia, a republic is a form of democracy …”
Actually, in academia a republic usually doesn’t refer to a democracy. That is more of the colloquial sense of the word. In academia there are several definitions of republic. For instance, if I were talking about colonial America I would probably be using James Madison’s definition meaning representative democracy. But, if I were talking about The People Republic of China, then republic would have nothing to do with democracy what-so-ever.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Definitions of words change, that is why it is important to use the current day definitions. In academia, a republic is a form of democracy in which there is no monarch as head of state.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
no, that may be your personal definition, but in academia, that is not the case.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
“Lecture 4 (uploading as we speak)”
Yeahhhhh, lecture 4 is coming and we can begin all of this again.
Will mjr256 be back with another ridiculous argument? Will the anarchists be back to trash statism? Find out in our next episode. Same Shane Time. Same Shane Channel.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
And it works like gangbusters everywhere it’s been tried.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Democracy is rule of men. Republic is rule of law. The government of a Republic doesn’t HAVE to be elected (although they generally are).
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Except that he’s NOT dumb. Lecture 4 (uploading as we speak) covers this.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
If you’re not even willing to listen to our arguments, why should we listen to you?
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Yeah, how dare I be biased to logic and reason…
Go on, just cover your ears like a good little cult member.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
@kosmoincalgary
But yes, I will agree with you that in today’s terminology it is kinda splitting hairs to draw a major distinction between democracy and a republic.
However, for those who spend time reading older texts, their may develop a larger distinction in their minds. But, this is because the distinction exists in the texts that they are reading.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
a lot of states want to use education vouchers, so people who can’t afford to send their kids to private schools will use their vouchers to buy private education instead of going to public school.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:50 am
@kosmoincalgary
Yes, the terms have converged recently. However up until about the 1900’s democracy purely meant direct-democracy.
Back in colonial times there are quite a few quotes of the founding fathers talking about how crappy democracy is, and how much better a republic is because you elect representatives instead of directly voting.
In studying the history of political science it is important to know these terms differed more in the past. Else you may read the documents incorrectly.