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.
The US Constitution was not written as if the federal government was all that existed. The Constitution actually enumerated the powers, responsibilities and functions to limit the power of the federal government.
In the phrase "in Order to form a more perfect Union" the 'union' is the union of the states, it did not say a more perfect central government.
One of the purposes of the US Constitution was to limit the power and authority of the federal government, the lion's share of power resided with the states.
None of what you said changes the fact that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is charged with insuring domestic Tranquility and promoting the general Welfare - as SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. If the US Supreme Court had not agreed that such programs are the domain of the Federal Government, it would have ruled against them decades ago and those programs would no longer exist.
Take it up with the supreme court because they obviously disagree and have the authority on constitutionality.
And actually, the federalist won, not the group that wanted more state power.
Yeah, I love how these self-proclaimed "Constitutional Experts" make these ignorant proclamations like they somehow know more what the Constitution allows than the U.S. Supreme Court does.
None of what you said changes the fact that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is charged with insuring domestic Tranquility and promoting the general Welfare - as SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. If the US Supreme Court had not agreed that such programs are the domain of the Federal Government, it would have ruled against them decades ago and those programs would no longer exist.
Ken
What part of general welfare and not specific welfare don't you get? I'll help out a bit, Protecting our borders is for the general welfare and not specific welfare. Get it?
What part of general welfare and not specific welfare don't you get? I'll help out a bit, Protecting our borders is for the general welfare and not specific welfare. Get it?
what part of "the supreme court" did you miss? In the end they are the final arbiters of what is constitutional
what part of "the supreme court" did you miss? In the end they are the final arbiters of what is constitutional
Yup. Neither loveshiscountry nor any other wingnut nobody here gets to decide what is or is not constitutional.
The Supreme Court decides that - and they have let such laws stand for half a century now.
Yup. Neither loveshiscountry nor any other wingnut nobody here gets to decide what is or is not constitutional.
The Supreme Court decides that - and they have let such laws stand for half a century now.
Ken
It is really fun to watch and hear the current SC, overturn and old SC ruling.
The constitution is very clear, unless you have a political agenda.
These 5/4 rulings tell just how political the ruling is.
If it the SC was not politically motivated, there would be 9/0 rulings every time.
ergo, the greater the Deficit the more money gets into the hands of the private sector. The 21st Century American way is leverage baby leverage! People complain about the public sevtor debt now approaching 20 Trillion dollars but they don't even sound a peep about the private sector debt approaching 60 Trillion dollars. Even better when the derivatives are taken into consideration dollarized financial obligations total 661 Trillion dollars as of Jan 2015.
That's like saying your family is in debt up to your eyeballs because you lent your car to your wife for the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
It is really fun to watch and hear the current SC, overturn and old SC ruling.
The constitution is very clear, unless you have a political agenda.
These 5/4 rulings tell just how political the ruling is.
If it the SC was not politically motivated, there would be 9/0 rulings every time.
Your premise is flawed; the Supreme Court tends to get difficult cases where there are points to be made on both sides, so 9/0 rulings shouldn't be quite that common.
Having said that, issues like Roe v Wade (7-2 decision) are now 5-4 along party lines so I agree that the Supremes can be very political.
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.
