Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're being ridiculous, of course they do. Are you really claiming that the last 209 years have been illegal? If so, you really need to take your case to the SCOTUS.
It is, in fact, the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
You're being ridiculous, of course they do. Are you really claiming that the last 209 years have been illegal? If so, you really need to take your case to the SCOTUS.
It is, in fact, the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
I have read it and I understand it.
This is the part which blows your theory away.
Remember, the judicial branch was intended to be the weakest branch of our government, so hot can the document which brought them into being be interpreted by them?
Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
You don't understand that nothing you think can accomplish can be accomplished without my respect for your rights. When you have no respect for the rights of anyone else, your own rights are negated. This includes corporate America bribing my representation out from under me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
We conservatives are not for the crony capitalism, bailouts, military industrial complex (aka. Crony capitalism), or corporate welfare.
BS. You gave blanks checks in Afghanistan that wound up in the taliban to keep them in bullets. The very same bullets shooting at our damned troops. Dictating the terms of a mission with lies on your lips, paying both sides of a war with taxpayer dollars for nearly a decade if not for dems in congress chasing down irregular spending? Then claim we're broke and have to sell the kids and grandma to cover the note on your crack habit? I DON'T THINK SO PAL!
Patriotic? Your 'support' of the military created a bonanza for 'private industry' and cut benefits and personnel of ACTUAL military. Not the crap that glommed onto it's coat tails.
You put us in a position of having bailout anything because you had been too ham handed in abdicating stewardship through deregulation mantra. Period. Neocon/ libertarian BS created this situation by preying on the government and the citizens through government offices. Alan Greenspan- what a perfect plant he was. Toking on the Ayn Rand school of economic crack pipe abdication.
Bush sat on his hands while the state of texas was used as a platform to fiscally assault the state of california. Ya'll have the audacity to blame it on california. You're really this sick in the head stuck in denial? Incompetent. Unfit for citizenship. Propaganda did this to you and now you're nothing more than a 2 bit traitor. Bravo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
We are for a constitutionally responsible government.
Small, unobtrusive.
BS and more BS. You'are abdication of any and all responsibility by hook or crook. Small and unobtrusive would be awesome if only you'd lead by example and get the hell off my porch.
The government, at every level, is not obstructing the Amish from living out their truth. It does obstruct blind ambition running over the masses, including the Amish. Except when your party sees the opportunity to feed lambs for slaughter and call it making a living. According to your party, it's quite alright to increase Amish taxes to astronomical levels to accommodate the military industrial complex and satisfy the blood lust of hawks they want no part of.
Republicans won't cut their supremacist ambitions. They won't cut the real fat in the military by ending guns for hire private contractors. But they're more than happy to put a shiv in the back of the actual troops who are bleeding for us coming and going. Nickel and dime them to death to preserve campaign donations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Our system is the greatest creator of wealth that the world has ever seen. Until government intervenes.
Until you abuse the government for nefarious purpose. Which you did, and continue to do, convinced by pimps that you made brewsters millions by putting people in chains. What sucks about nouveau riche is that they never understood the generosity and cultivation of education, and ethical environment, that ever gave them a fighting chance. They're walking talking breathing c-words irrespective of gender.
Sarah Palin absolutely does represent you. She charmed her way into a mayor's office job, used the job as a means to hire lobbyists with half a million dollars of money wasilla didn't have for the chance to prey on congressional committees & procure an ice rink for Eskimos. The Tea party champion of fiscal conservative. The libertarian enlightened self interest spitting on legitimate stewardship. Too ignorant to be ashamed of themselves.
You're being ridiculous, of course they do. Are you really claiming that the last 209 years have been illegal? If so, you really need to take your case to the SCOTUS.
It is, in fact, the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Confederate John Birch morons don't want to get it. Self worship at the expense of all others is all they want to know, and all they will ever know.
Remember, the judicial branch was intended to be the weakest branch of our government, so hot can the document which brought them into being be interpreted by them?
Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Bring a case to the SCOTUS if you think you're right. Your opinion and beliefs about how things should be doesn't mean jack. Things are the way they are and you bit**ing about not getting your way is childish.
Get used to it, YOU are not changing anything. Might I recommend the Serenity Prayer????
Of course the left has created the dependent class. You confuse poverty with dependence. There have been poor people here always.
I confuse nothing.
If I passed a magic wand over the entire nation instill in every man, woman and child a work ethic that would make John Calvin look like blush, this country would have enough work for them even in a boomingest(sic) economy.
Quote:
Most managed their way out until the left came along to help.
Oh, puleeze! Who is the most, and when? It wasn't until the WWII generation that middle class and generational poverty began to decline (see graph below) became a staple of American society fueled by the government's finally found courage to protect the rights of workers to organize for the right to collectively bargain, government provision for educational benefits, and low cost loans that allowed the new middle class to become home owners, all "left wing" policies.
Please note the rapid decline of the "dependent class" from 1959 until 1980, oh yeah, that's when the war against the poor was declared by the Republican Party. Note how the "dependent class" is more dependent on an economy built on growth than on government subsidies.
By the way, who makes up this "so-called dependent class"? I'm dying to read your demographics on who these people allegedly are.
Now we have generations living in poverty, dependent on the government. This is the left's constituency. If they dig themselves out the left loses them.
Really, 80% of welfare recipients receive benefits for 5 years or less. Kind of difficult to have intergenerational dependency in 5 years.
So somebody explain to me Americas properity post-New Deal? Once like things like min. wage, Social Security, making it possible to organize unions and strongly regulated banks etc. The share of income by the bottom 90%, which I'm guessing includes most of you, was it's at highest.
If it was up to me, the only way a woman could ever possibly get child support is if she was married to the father for at least 9 years.
And even then, if she files a "no-fault" divorce, she gets freaking nothing.
Common sense rules....
Mircea
Proof positive of what I have said for many years: there's no such thing as "common sense". So if the guy doesn't hang around for 9 years, the kids should not get any support from him?
Proof positive of what I have said for many years: there's no such thing as "common sense". So if the guy doesn't hang around for 9 years, the kids should not get any support from him?
Did you invent that post? Either that or that poster is fregging crazy. Talk about making women second class citizens dependent on the irresponsible whims of an otherwise dead beat daddy. What an a-hole???
If I passed a magic wand over the entire nation instill in every man, woman and child a work ethic that would make John Calvin look like blush, this country would have enough work for them even in a boomingest(sic) economy.
Oh, puleeze! Who is the most, and when? It wasn't until the WWII generation that middle class and generational poverty began to decline (see graph below) became a staple of American society fueled by the government's finally found courage to protect the rights of workers to organize for the right to collectively bargain, government provision for educational benefits, and low cost loans that allowed the new middle class to become home owners, all "left wing" policies.
Please note the rapid decline of the "dependent class" from 1959 until 1980, oh yeah, that's when the war against the poor was declared by the Republican Party. Note how the "dependent class" is more dependent on an economy built on growth than on government subsidies.
By the way, who makes up this "so-called dependent class"? I'm dying to read your demographics on who these people allegedly are.
Really, 80% of welfare recipients receive benefits for 5 years or less. Kind of difficult to have intergenerational dependency in 5 years.
Of course you are confused, in your first post you discussed indentured servetude. Of course there were no depence in those times because there was no welfare. Dependence is a fairly recent phenomenon, since the welfare state is a fairly modern phenomenon.
You celebrate the fact that 20% of welfare recipients exceed 5 years. I consider it a tragedy, a tragedy the left wishes to expand to maintain control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
