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 Constitution was designed to create the Fed govt it describes, and to give that govt powers. And any power the Const didn't explicitly give it, was forbidden to the Fed, though states and lower govts could still exercise it if they wanted.
And among those forbidden powers, was the power to transfer wealth to people who did nothing to earn it, the power to mandate wage levels, the power to restrict guns and other weapons, the power to dictate what private individuals could do with their land and property, etc.
These forbidden powers are the central core of modern liberalism.
So is there anything the liberals can do to prevent their unconstitutional agenda from being declared unconstitutional, a piece at a time in the coming years as Constitution-upholding judges and justices are finally appointed to more and more majorities in the courts? Besides their usual tactics of lying, threatening, and harassment?
Might they start trying to get state govts instead, to approve their agenda? Wealth Transfer etc. is not unconstitutional for state governments, unless of course the state govt has a clause in its State Constitution forbidding it as the Fed Constitution does.
But such oppressive governments tend to stagger and even collapse under massive debts and heavily restricted, unproductive populaces, and need to have monopolies that people cannot leave. Since the whole purpose of 50 state govts is to compete with each other for their tax base, it's unlikely that modern liberalism will survive there.
There's only one person who is afraid to engage in this thread. That would be you.
Hilarious. As the leftist fanatics run for the tall grass and hide rather than debate whether their agenda is unconstitutional (as shown, and so far undisputed), they are now trying to claim it's my fault they're doing it.
These people really have nothing left, even in the excuses department.
Hilarious. As the leftist fanatics run for the tall grass and hide rather than debate whether their agenda is unconstitutional (as shown, and so far undisputed), they are now trying to claim it's my fault they're doing it.
These people really have nothing left, even in the excuses department.
Make a claim.
Refuse to engage or acknowledge other side.
Claim other side has not refuted claim.
Declare victory.
Yes, it's really sad that the one person here who is clearly afraid to debate, is accusing others of being afraid to debate. Of course, we know the reason for that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
It is abundantly clear why Roboteer is avoiding my questions. Here is what he said, once again:
Now, if I ask him (again), "Is the Air Force constitutional?" he is faced with a conundrum.
Quite clearly, the constitution did not give the US government authority to create an Air Force (or NASA, or the national parks, or any of those other entities I listed). Roboteer is thus faced with a conundrum:
1. If he answers yes, the Air Force is indeed constitutional, that forces him to admit that perfectly legitimate government entities can be created that are not explicitly granted by the constitution. Once he admits that, there is no end to other entities that can be done likewise, including the ones he hates.
2. If he answers no, the Air Force is unconstitutional, he is forced to admit that a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted branch of government is illegal.
In either case, he is going to look ridiculous, and expose the ridiculousness of his philosophy. This is precisely why he is avoiding answering my questions.
And among those forbidden powers, was the power to transfer wealth to people who did nothing to earn it, the power to mandate wage levels, the power to restrict guns and other weapons, the power to dictate what private individuals could do with their land and property, etc.
So, you are claiming the conservative SC will put an end to it?
Question: Why have they not done so already, given the SC has leaned conservative for a very long time?
The liberals have been claiming for a long time that their agenda (expand govt, transfer wealth, make laws without constitutional authority etc.) is constitutional.
Quote:
Refuse to engage or acknowledge other side.
See this entire thread on the illegality of the liberal agenda.
Quote:
Claim other side has not refuted claim.
The liberals can't since I did refute it, with facts backed by references. So they even refuse to acknowledge that. Their entire "contribution" to this thread so far, has been (a) to keep trying to change the subject, and (b) to whine that their subject changes keep getting ignored.
Quote:
Declare victory.
Hard for them to declare victory, since they've done nothing but duck and dodge, fake and divert, while desperately ignoring the facts. Such ignorance seems to be the mainstay of their existence nowadays.
Quote:
Very Trumpy.
Trump is now a P&OC liberal?
Last edited by Roboteer; 07-13-2018 at 08:56 AM..
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.
