You call him a douchebag because he supports the Constitution and you do not.That Pesky Constitution | FreedomWorksCan’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into
"that pesky constitution"
?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You call him a douchebag because he supports the Constitution and you do not.That Pesky Constitution | FreedomWorksCan’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into
"that pesky constitution"
?
Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.You can start with
Wickard v. Filburn :: 317 U.S. 111 (1942)You questioned congresses authority for the Department of Education.Thanks for making me read another irrelevant post.
I answered.
You could at least thank me for educating you. (about education) And I don't even have a constitutional mandate to do so.
You call him a douchebag because he supports the Constitution and you do not.That Pesky Constitution | FreedomWorksCan’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into
"that pesky constitution"
?
Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.Nothing prevents a Dept of Education
You really don’t understand the Constitution do you?Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.Nothing prevents a Dept of Education
Thats what makes it unconstitutional.
You swore to defend a a document you dont even understand?
It gives the federal govt a specific list of powers. It even specifically states that anything else is left to the states.You really don’t understand the Constitution do you?Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.Nothing prevents a Dept of Education
Thats what makes it unconstitutional.
You swore to defend a a document you dont even understand?
It is only four pages long and does not provide point by point This is allowed, This isn’t
Wickard, followed by Miller, followed by dozens of more cases.Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.
Your link is about ACTUAL interstate commerce, not public schools.
Do you understand now?
Federal Government has broad powers.It gives the federal govt a specific list of powers. It even specifically states that anything else is left to the states.You really don’t understand the Constitution do you?Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.Nothing prevents a Dept of Education
Thats what makes it unconstitutional.
You swore to defend a a document you dont even understand?
It is only four pages long and does not provide point by point This is allowed, This isn’t
Its called 3rd grade civics
Probably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has
Wickard, followed by Miller, followed by dozens of more cases.
United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.
Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has
Probably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.
It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to doProbably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has
The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages.
Show where the constitution says anything about strictly limiting GovernmentFederal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has
Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.
The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.
Not the electorate.
Another irrelevant link.Wickard, followed by Miller, followed by dozens of more cases.Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.
Your link is about ACTUAL interstate commerce, not public schools.
Do you understand now?
United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.
United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.
Read the cliff notes of the case.You have no idea what you're talking about. lol.
Says the guy that believes in a type of totalitarian govt based off 12th century England.It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to doProbably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has
Actually it is you trapped in the 18th centurySays the guy that believes in a type of totalitarian govt based off 12th century England.It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to doProbably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers. The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages. They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.Federal Government has broad powers.
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has