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.
Yes, because right-wing lunatics who care only about 1 part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) are just such great role-models...
Oh, and who was it who established the DHS and the Patriot Act? A Republican... oh, but that's right - everything that went wrong before January, 2009 didn't happen... of course.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled ignorant bashing of "liberals."
There are supreme court rulings that have struck down laws by both Republicans and Democrats. The Clintons are alleged to have done this. The CIA is alleged to have plotted 9/11 by some people as well, that doesn't mean that it's the case. Were the Clintons to have done that it would have had all of nothing to do with the Constitution or the rule of law. The only it that is proved here is that your emotions tell you that Democrat bad and so you try to cherry pick things about which to whine.
In terms of shuck and jive, most conservative posters are the same. Take for instance your post above. You put out the Halbig ruling as if it's the first time that the court has struck something down. In terms of working together, the most obstructionist party right now is not the Democrats. We're the ones not willing to compromise generally.
Instead of whining about liberal posters, perhaps you might want to ask if your posts hold up to your own complaint about shuck & jive.
OK, I will ask that. I will also go on to ask about the effects of breathing too many paint fumes.
If he was in the Navy, all he probably did was go for a boat ride. Folks do that everyday here in Pensacola. The Navy doesn't impress me one bit except for their pilots.
Awww...Poor widdle human_being doesn't like me. Wahhhh...
This is pretty much it........ Founders have been dead a long time, it's been up to us to interpret it since.
We have documents, such as the Federalist Papers, that need to be utilized a bit more.
In Federalist Paper #41 Madison clearly explains the purpose of the General Welfare Clause:
Quote:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have
grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which
it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an
unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be
necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be
given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their
stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the
Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just
cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it
would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing
an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom
of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or
the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to
raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification
of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not
even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the
same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which
will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a
share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be
retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied
any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of
particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included
in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to
use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of
particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain
nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound
and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of
charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the
Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the
latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears
that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of
Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in
article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and
mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more
identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for
the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in
Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language
again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules
which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest
in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what
would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these
general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and
limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the
common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves,
whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in
justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How
difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
It is a fact that most liberals exhibit a total distain toward our Constitution and the Rule of Law. Even our Democrat controlled Senate is complicit in allowing President Obama to erode their own powers. Such inaction on their part to help reign in the power-grabbing madman may come back to haunt them.
Awww...Poor widdle human_being doesn't like me. Wahhhh...
Grow up.
Why should I? Who would want to? I'm only 71, I have plenty of time to "grow up".
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.
