Political Science professor Matt Grossman nails why American government policies are overwhelmingly leftist and have been so since the New Deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-policy-has-gone-liberals-way-for-70-years/2014/04/08/8dffa2b2-b906-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

So are laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors conservative or liberal?

-spence

So are laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors conservative or liberal?

-spence

They are neither "conservative" nor "liberal." It is redundant to say "expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors". Constitutionally mandated federal "behaviors" are defined and cannot be expanded or contracted. To expand a definition would merely be adding more words to it, perhaps to clarify, but would not essentially change it. Constitutionally mandated federal "behaviors" are enumerated and concisely defined. Any "behaviors "that act outside the constitutional definition are unconstitutional. Presumably, the power to legislate within the scope of enumerated "behaviors" is unlimited.

But legislating within enumerated power is not an expansion of federal authority, nor what is meant by expansion of government. The notion of expanding government, in a constitutional sense, is government intrusion outside the scope of its enumerated powers.

Specify the laws to which you are referring, and we can discuss whether they are "conservative" or "liberal."

How is the size of the government relative to defense spending not a subjective interpretation of the Constitution?

-spence

How is the size of the government relative to defense spending not a subjective interpretation of the Constitution?

-spence

Once again, you slide from the contextual word in the first question to a different contextual word in the next question so as to make them related, but the change in words destroys the relationship. I was answering the question about your "laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors". The "scope" of government is not the same as the "size" of government as you pose it in your second question.

The constitutional "scope" of the federal government is limited by the enumerated powers given to it in the Constitution. The "size" within those enumerated powers is not limited. Defense spending falls within the enumerated powers, so the fiscal "size" needs no "subjective interpretation," nor does it need an originalist one. An originalist would "interpret" that it fits perfectly within the original language and intent of the Constitution.

On the other hand, originalists oppose "subjective" interpretations--such interpretations are not bound either by constitutionally enumerated powers nor any documented intent of the Founders. Subjective interpretations are purely ad hoc opinions based on personal preferences, rather than being based on either the letter or intent of the law. Subjective interpretation is the preferred judicial method of review by progressive judges.

Subjective interpretation does have a basis in the progressive training they get in most major law schools which have created modes of jurisprudence based on various made-up standards which free judges from constitutional stricture, and allows them to adjudicate by means of academically concocted doctrines with such names as, Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principles of Fairness, Rule according to Higher Law, and others, and even by using other nations' constitutions or laws, or even by substituting current verbal usage rather than meaning of the words when the Constitution was written. Various SCOTUS Justices have gone completely subjective, such as Bryer currently does. One of the modes, Instrumentalism, for example, treats law as a means to gain certain social goals, or treating all legal doctrines as instruments or means of serving the social objective that the judge deems appropriate. So rather than applying the Constitution as written and intended to the legislation in question before the Court, judges, employing the "doctrine" of Instrumentalism, can personally deem that legislation appropriate as a means to attain social goals they prefer, and can "interpret" the Constitution by artfully twisting the meaning and language of various clauses to imply the legal logic of their subjective decisions.

In short, "the size of the government relative to defense spending" is not limited by the Constitution. But it is limited by the size of the government's wallet, and the wallets of the taxpayers, and the size it wishes to expand the national debt. It is also theoretically limited by the size and scope of the Peoples knowledge of the truth, and their intellectual ability to understand the purpose of government, in order to intelligently translate those into appropriate votes. Unfortunately, the People, by and large, are too ill informed and too disinterested to competently apply that most important limitation on the size and scope of government. On the contrary, progressive education, media, and politics, have convinced the People not to be concerned--that the government and its expert bureaucrats know better about all that, and the matter is in good hands. Maybe, now and then, as Spence might say, they just need to act a bit more responsibly.

Of course, "responsibly" is in the eye of the beholder. Progressives believe they ARE acting responsibly. So it's a catch 22. Voters sometimes vote them out . . . or think they've voted them out . . . but lo and behold--the same irresponsible spending and stuff keeps going on. So voters, to the advantage of progressive government, become less and less interested in voting since it doesn't make a substantial difference. And all the levers of the ruling class are pulled by the elites in government, their cronies in business, and the dominant media, in such a way as to convince the People that just some more of the same is needed to eventually make things better. That we are heading, constantly heading, in the right direction. And the straw men who stand in the way, who obstruct progress, must constantly be defeated in every election. And the poor, and the middle class, and the genders, and the unions, and the rest of the little collective victims, must unite against those uber wealthy, racist, misogynist, genderphobic straw men. And don't be concerned with irrelevant stuff like national debts. The amounts are miniscule compared to the monies that the straw men have and will spend to make it more difficult for you. Besides, we will make them pay the debt. We will make them pay their fair share.

And for God's sake, don't fall prey to nonsense about the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . blah, blah, blah. That's just an outdated parchment which allowed slaves, which gives the straw men power over you. The Constitution does not give you fairness or equality . . . We do. And the limited "scope" of government allowed by that Constitution merely prevents the government from distributing wealth equally. It allows the proverbial robber barons and financial oligarchs to rule you. We are your true salvation, not the Constitution. We have fixed that "scope" thing, expanding it in a sort of unlimited way, so that we can freely do what is necessary to give you the freedom, wealth, and happiness you deserve.

And yet, in spite of over 70 years of the supposed progressive fight against the filthy rich straw men, the rich get richer, the middle class shrinks, the number of poor grows larger, the promised "effective" freedoms that replaced unalienable rights somehow don't manifest in any visible or functional way other than as divisive notions which pit sectors of the populace against one another. The unlimited power the government has gained appears to have transferred all the freedoms and wealth from the People to the government itself--its masterminds and cronies. But the message continues to repeat as if from some planted disc . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we will free you from the robber barons . . . we will give you health care . . . we will care for you from cradle to grave . . . we will be the heaven in your lifetime that replaces the illogical promise of religions which await your death . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we are heading in the right direction . . .

What a great reply debutch

Especially this line

"It is also theoretically limited by the size and scope of the Peoples knowledge of the truth, and their intellectual ability to understand the purpose of government, in order to intelligently translate those into appropriate votes. "

And like you said, media and educators tend to steer people to believe all is well.

God Bless America

Once again, you slide from the contextual word in the first question to a different contextual word in the next question so as to make them related, but the change in words destroys the relationship. I was answering the question about your "laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors". The "scope" of government is not the same as the "size" of government as you pose it in your second question.

The constitutional "scope" of the federal government is limited by the enumerated powers given to it in the Constitution. The "size" within those enumerated powers is not limited. Defense spending falls within the enumerated powers, so the fiscal "size" needs no "subjective interpretation," nor does it need an originalist one. An originalist would "interpret" that it fits perfectly within the original language and intent of the Constitution.

On the other hand, originalists oppose "subjective" interpretations--such interpretations are not bound either by constitutionally enumerated powers nor any documented intent of the Founders. Subjective interpretations are purely ad hoc opinions based on personal preferences, rather than being based on either the letter or intent of the law. Subjective interpretation is the preferred judicial method of review by progressive judges.

Subjective interpretation does have a basis in the progressive training they get in most major law schools which have created modes of jurisprudence based on various made-up standards which free judges from constitutional stricture, and allows them to adjudicate by means of academically concocted doctrines with such names as, Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principles of Fairness, Rule according to Higher Law, and others, and even by using other nations' constitutions or laws, or even by substituting current verbal usage rather than meaning of the words when the Constitution was written. Various SCOTUS Justices have gone completely subjective, such as Bryer currently does. One of the modes, Instrumentalism, for example, treats law as a means to gain certain social goals, or treating all legal doctrines as instruments or means of serving the social objective that the judge deems appropriate. So rather than applying the Constitution as written and intended to the legislation in question before the Court, judges, employing the "doctrine" of Instrumentalism, can personally deem that legislation appropriate as a means to attain social goals they prefer, and can "interpret" the Constitution by artfully twisting the meaning and language of various clauses to imply the legal logic of their subjective decisions.

In short, "the size of the government relative to defense spending" is not limited by the Constitution. But it is limited by the size of the government's wallet, and the wallets of the taxpayers, and the size it wishes to expand the national debt. It is also theoretically limited by the size and scope of the Peoples knowledge of the truth, and their intellectual ability to understand the purpose of government, in order to intelligently translate those into appropriate votes. Unfortunately, the People, by and large, are too ill informed and too disinterested to competently apply that most important limitation on the size and scope of government. On the contrary, progressive education, media, and politics, have convinced the People not to be concerned--that the government and its expert bureaucrats know better about all that, and the matter is in good hands. Maybe, now and then, as Spence might say, they just need to act a bit more responsibly.

Of course, "responsibly" is in the eye of the beholder. Progressives believe they ARE acting responsibly. So it's a catch 22. Voters sometimes vote them out . . . or think they've voted them out . . . but lo and behold--the same irresponsible spending and stuff keeps going on. So voters, to the advantage of progressive government, become less and less interested in voting since it doesn't make a substantial difference. And all the levers of the ruling class are pulled by the elites in government, their cronies in business, and the dominant media, in such a way as to convince the People that just some more of the same is needed to eventually make things better. That we are heading, constantly heading, in the right direction. And the straw men who stand in the way, who obstruct progress, must constantly be defeated in every election. And the poor, and the middle class, and the genders, and the unions, and the rest of the little collective victims, must unite against those uber wealthy, racist, misogynist, genderphobic straw men. And don't be concerned with irrelevant stuff like national debts. The amounts are miniscule compared to the monies that the straw men have and will spend to make it more difficult for you. Besides, we will make them pay the debt. We will make them pay their fair share.

And for God's sake, don't fall prey to nonsense about the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution . . . blah, blah, blah. That's just an outdated parchment which allowed slaves, which gives the straw men power over you. The Constitution does not give you fairness or equality . . . We do. And the limited "scope" of government allowed by that Constitution merely prevents the government from distributing wealth equally. It allows the proverbial robber barons and financial oligarchs to rule you. We are your true salvation, not the Constitution. We have fixed that "scope" thing, expanding it in a sort of unlimited way, so that we can freely do what is necessary to give you the freedom, wealth, and happiness you deserve.

And yet, in spite of over 70 years of the supposed progressive fight against the filthy rich straw men, the rich get richer, the middle class shrinks, the number of poor grows larger, the promised "effective" freedoms that replaced unalienable rights somehow don't manifest in any visible or functional way other than as divisive notions which pit sectors of the populace against one another. The unlimited power the government has gained appears to have transferred all the freedoms and wealth from the People to the government itself--its masterminds and cronies. But the message continues to repeat as if from some planted disc . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we will free you from the robber barons . . . we will give you health care . . . we will care for you from cradle to grave . . . we will be the heaven in your lifetime that replaces the illogical promise of religions which await your death . . . we are heading in the right direction . . . we are heading in the right direction . . .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again, you slide from the contextual word in the first question to a different contextual word in the next question so as to make them related, but the change in words destroys the relationship. I was answering the question about your "laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors". The "scope" of government is not the same as the "size" of government as you pose it in your second question.

The constitutional "scope" of the federal government is limited by the enumerated powers given to it in the Constitution. The "size" within those enumerated powers is not limited. Defense spending falls within the enumerated powers, so the fiscal "size" needs no "subjective interpretation," nor does it need an originalist one. An originalist would "interpret" that it fits perfectly within the original language and intent of the Constitution.

That's not the test set forth by the article you claimed "nails why American government policies are overwhelmingly leftist and have been so since the New Deal."

The author clearly states that "conservative" legislation "contracted the scope of government funding, regulation or responsibility."

Beyond protecting our borders or providing for a common defense many military actions are a matter of policy, most expand the scope of government funding and as we've recently witnessed and add tremendously the government's responsibility.

-spence

Beyond protecting our borders or providing for a common defense many military actions are a matter of policy, most expand the scope of government funding and as we've recently witnessed and add tremendously the government's responsibility.

-spence

And Power.

That's not the test set forth by the article you claimed "nails why American government policies are overwhelmingly leftist and have been so since the New Deal."

Your doing it again, morphing from one argument into another as if they were the same. The two questions you posed to me were constitutional in nature: "So are laws that expand the scope of constitutionally mandated federal behaviors conservative or liberal?"

And: "How is the size of the government relative to defense spending not a subjective interpretation of the Constitution?"

The test for my responses was not set forth by the article. The article never mentioned the Constitution. The test for them is strictly a constitutional one, and I stand by my answers in regards to that test.

The author clearly states that "conservative" legislation "contracted the scope of government funding, regulation or responsibility."

But he doesn't clearly state what he means by "conservative". The closest he comes is "stiffer sentencing" and "traditional values" and smaller government. Those might involve constitutional questions depending on what the sentencing is for and who is doing it, and what the traditional values are and if they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

If government funding, regulation or responsibility are outside the scope of powers enumerated in the Constitution, then the government has, in toto, enlarged its scope of power. Conservative legislation can constitutionally contract the "scope" of government funding if it eliminates spending on items for which there is no enumerated power given to spend. Likewise, as well for regulations or responsibility. But the scope of federal power as enumerated in the Constitution is not reduced when the use of that power is curtailed or eliminated. The power still exists if needed, and the quantity of that power is unlimited, even if not used or fiscally reduced. So if the funding, regulation, or responsibility are within the "scope" of constitutional enumerations, there is no contraction of the "scope" of federal power, only a reduction in the size, use, and cost of it.

The author isn't specifically discussing constitutionality when he refers to "conservative" or "liberal" legislation Constitutionality can certainly be inferred in matters of "government funding, regulation or responsibility." But the "scope" of his definition of "conservative" legislation apparently expands beyond its constitutionality. He seems to be covering all notions of conservatism as well as liberalism in the current political sense. So the "scope" he refers to is general rather than constitutional in nature. Even so, his thesis is spot on as to why government has continuously shifted to the left. I do not disagree with him even if he leaves out the constitutional equation.



Beyond protecting our borders or providing for a common defense many military actions are a matter of policy, most expand the scope of government funding and as we've recently witnessed and add tremendously the government's responsibility.

-spence

OK, but, unlike the two questions to which I responded, you left out the constitutional connection this time. That's another story, and doesn't contradict what the author wrote.