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.
Remember when the Republicans took over the House they said that every piece of legislation would have to state the exact passage that warrented said bill? Where in the Constitution does it say that In God We Trust will be our motto (and then repeated) and that there should be a bust of Winston Churchill in the Capital?
Did they do that for any bill? How come everybody seems to have forgotten about that?
Remember when the Republicans took over the House they said that every piece of legislation would have to state the exact passage that warrented said bill? Where in the Constitution does it say that In God We Trust will be our motto (and then repeated) and that there should be a bust of Winston Churchill in the Capital?
I think that only applies to new bills. I like the general idea, though.
Remember when the Republicans took over the House they said that every piece of legislation would have to state the exact passage that warrented said bill? Where in the Constitution does it say that In God We Trust will be our motto (and then repeated) and that there should be a bust of Winston Churchill in the Capital?
Did they do that for any bill? How come everybody seems to have forgotten about that?
Because they quickly realized (as some people here still haven't) that Democrats would simply say that every expanding-big-govt bill is authorized by either the Welfare Clause or the Commerce Clause, thus triggering an endless no-it-doesn't-yes-it-does "debate" that accomplished nothing and never settled anything.
Because they quickly realized (as some people here still haven't) that Democrats would simply say that every expanding-big-govt bill is authorized by either the Welfare Clause or the Commerce Clause, thus triggering an endless no-it-doesn't-yes-it-does "debate" that accomplished nothing and never settled anything.
....just as the Democrats wanted. Because this endless debate would allow them to go on piling everything into those two clauses ad infinitum, and continue expanding government without end.
Remember when the Republicans took over the House they said that every piece of legislation would have to state the exact passage that warrented said bill? Where in the Constitution does it say that In God We Trust will be our motto (and then repeated) and that there should be a bust of Winston Churchill in the Capital?
If that wasn't our motto, I would be offended. My trauma would slow my work and affect interstate commerce.
Because not everything is explicitly in the Constitution
Absolutely correct. And the founders knew it, which is why they added two particular amendments.
The 10th amendment deals with the Powers of Government, and the 9th amendment deals with ther Rights of the People.
The 10th says that if a certain power isn't listed in the Constitution, then the Fed govt is forbidden to exercise that power; but the states and the people still can.
The 9th says that if a certain right of the people is not listed, that DOESN'T mean that the people can't have that right.
In other words, the rights of the people are NOT limited to just what's explicitly written in the Constitution; but the powers of the Fed Govt ARE limited to just what's written in the Const.
The Democrats try to dodge around the 10th all they can, since they want government to have far more power than just the restricted amount listed in the COnstitution. So they engage in endless arguments over what the 10th "really" means, pretending it's not obvious. And under cover of that smokescreen they keep expanding government all they can, to do much more than the Constitution allows.
Absolutely correct. And the founders knew it, which is why they added two particular amendments.
The 10th amendment deals with the Powers of Government, and the 9th amendment deals with ther Rights of the People.
The 10th says that if a certain power isn't listed in the Constitution, then the Fed govt is forbidden to exercise that power; but the states and the people still can.
The 9th says that if a certain right of the people is not listed, that DOESN'T mean that the people can't have that right.
In other words, the rights of the people are NOT limited to just what's explicitly written in the Constitution; but the powers of the Fed Govt ARE limited to just what's written in the Const.
The Democrats try to dodge around the 10th all they can, since they want government to have far more power than just the restricted amount listed in the COnstitution. So they engage in endless arguments over what the 10th "really" means, pretending it's not obvious. And under cover of that smokescreen they keep expanding government all they can, to do much more than the Constitution allows.
The detailed limited powers of government is the purpose of the Constitution. The rights of the people are off limits to government - not to be infringed.
Most people are unaware of what Article 1, section 8 entails. They also don't realize Articles 2 and 3 define the weakest branches of government.
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.
