Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I get it...That was a Great job of Gooling for an opinion that matched yours.Right....Instead of Googling and copy-n-pasting something you probably don't even comprehend, how 'bout coming up with something out of your own head, for a change?
If you need the cliff notes, just ask. That clause was inserted because the Founders (drawing from Montesquieu) held that a functional federal form of government required political homogeneity. Every state doing its own thing in this respect wouldn't fly, which is why the feds can disallow alternate forms of political organization by states.
Get it?
Like;
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205
&
McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521
?
The plaintiffs were "angry internet posters"? Really.
I'm refering to USMB's "angry internet posters" and their dribble about SCOTUS rulings.
They already had an idiot, enough monkeys, clowns, chicken geeks and other assorted freaks. Plus there's no place for a cage mucker that leaves the wagons more full of bullshit after he's done.I thought you ran away to the circus forever.
I've heard of "Hunger artists" at the circus but never "Hypocrisy Artists", either Dude.I get it...That was a Great job of Gooling for an opinion that matched yours.Right....Instead of Googling and copy-n-pasting something you probably don't even comprehend, how 'bout coming up with something out of your own head, for a change?
If you need the cliff notes, just ask. That clause was inserted because the Founders (drawing from Montesquieu) held that a functional federal form of government required political homogeneity. Every state doing its own thing in this respect wouldn't fly, which is why the feds can disallow alternate forms of political organization by states.
Get it?
Yet, the words of Madison are now supposed to carry weight and veracity when they reflect your central authoritarian politics, but are irrelevant when you have a SCOTUS ruling to cower behind?
Interesting.
They already had an idiot, enough monkeys, clowns, chicken geeks and other assorted freaks. Plus there's no place for a cage mucker that leaves the wagons more full of bullshit after he's done.I thought you ran away to the circus forever.
Nice non-answer.Perhaps because Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that they will.
For what purpose?...What's the desired outcome?
In Madison's words:
"...the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained. But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature."
Yeah, THERE'S an unbiased academic opinion just dripping with truthiness. So, you're thinking you can post shit like that, expect it to be treated without scrutiny and not provide the backlink?Calvin Coolidge, born July 4: Hero to tea partiers Breaking News The Herald Bulletin
They are building a museum in his honor. With his austerity, shouldn't they instead donate they money raised to...I don't know...BP or something?
Coolidge, a man who ascended to the Presidency by a fluke---he was not initially elected. Think: Gerald Ford.
---
In domestic affairs, he went along with the Immigration Act of 1924, which curbed the number of eastern and southern Europeans allowed into America and excluded the Japanese altogether. He also supported the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926, initiated by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, the wealthy Pittsburgh banker who favored tax cuts for the rich. These acts freed up private funds that fueled the speculation behind the stock market crash of 1929. To make matters worse, Coolidge fought farm relief legislation that might have shored up the depressed farm economy.
Like Harding, Coolidge allowed his cabinet a free hand in foreign affairs...In Latin America, Coolidge's administration supported economic imperialism. In 1928 Latin American countries were eager to denounce U.S. business practices, and Secretary Hughes was barely able to dissuade them from passing a strong anti-U.S. resolution
Oh the irony! The irony.
I get it...That was a Great job of Gooling for an opinion that matched yours.Right....Instead of Googling and copy-n-pasting something you probably don't even comprehend, how 'bout coming up with something out of your own head, for a change?
If you need the cliff notes, just ask. That clause was inserted because the Founders (drawing from Montesquieu) held that a functional federal form of government required political homogeneity. Every state doing its own thing in this respect wouldn't fly, which is why the feds can disallow alternate forms of political organization by states.
Get it?
Yet, the words of Madison are now supposed to carry weight and veracity when they reflect your central authoritarian politics, but are irrelevant when you have a SCOTUS ruling to cower behind?
Interesting.
Nice non-answer.
For what purpose?...What's the desired outcome?
In Madison's words:
"...the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained. But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature."
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of strict construction was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
In high school, in university, in reading hundreds of histories, articles, and position papers. In reading, writing, and discussing about it. Your basic issue is that you want no one telling you what to do and to stay off your property even to the determent of yourself, your neighbors, and your community.
Doesn't matter if you don't like being part of community, Dude, because you are, because you don't have the numbers to change, because that is the way it is.
Translation: "We're in power now and we are going to run roughshod over all of you and make shit up in the process...and there isn't anything the people can do about it..."
The powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined over the last 150 years. If you are unhappy with the shift of power to the Federal Government, you are free to avail yourself to our constitutional form of government and get it changed.
What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts
Yeah, THERE'S an unbiased academic opinion just dripping with truthiness. So, you're thinking you can post shit like that, expect it to be treated without scrutiny and not provide the backlink?Calvin Coolidge, born July 4: Hero to tea partiers Breaking News The Herald Bulletin
They are building a museum in his honor. With his austerity, shouldn't they instead donate they money raised to...I don't know...BP or something?
Coolidge, a man who ascended to the Presidency by a fluke---he was not initially elected. Think: Gerald Ford.
---
In domestic affairs, he went along with the Immigration Act of 1924, which curbed the number of eastern and southern Europeans allowed into America and excluded the Japanese altogether. He also supported the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926, initiated by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, the wealthy Pittsburgh banker who favored tax cuts for the rich. These acts freed up private funds that fueled the speculation behind the stock market crash of 1929. To make matters worse, Coolidge fought farm relief legislation that might have shored up the depressed farm economy.
Like Harding, Coolidge allowed his cabinet a free hand in foreign affairs...In Latin America, Coolidge's administration supported economic imperialism. In 1928 Latin American countries were eager to denounce U.S. business practices, and Secretary Hughes was barely able to dissuade them from passing a strong anti-U.S. resolution
Oh the irony! The irony.
Where'd you pull that out of the Daily Kos 'history' section?
Translation: "We're in power now and we are going to run roughshod over all of you and make shit up in the process...and there isn't anything the people can do about it..."
The powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined over the last 150 years. If you are unhappy with the shift of power to the Federal Government, you are free to avail yourself to our constitutional form of government and get it changed.
What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts
Has the 10th been amendended? If it hasn't then 220 years the powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined
In Madison's words:
"...the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be substantially maintained. But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature."
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of strict construction was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
Too bad Jefferson's one-man's-opinions were never the last word, then or now.
So Jefferson was a one man's opinion but you take Madisons word as gospel? Just because Jeffersons opinion supersedes your opinion you get pissed.thank you for quoting something of substance, as opposed to writing the type of shit that some people here pass off as original thoughts.
The powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined over the last 150 years. If you are unhappy with the shift of power to the Federal Government, you are free to avail yourself to our constitutional form of government and get it changed.
What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts
Has the 10th been amendended? If it hasn't then 220 years the powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined
The operative phrase: "What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts"
Amusing how you hide from it and post replies to arguments of your own making. You have a mildly severe case of wingnut dis-ease
Yeah, I know. I was there earlier and read their highly biased review. Intellectual impartiality my copious pasty white ass.The powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined over the last 150 years. If you are unhappy with the shift of power to the Federal Government, you are free to avail yourself to our constitutional form of government and get it changed.
What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts
Has the 10th been amendended? If it hasn't then 220 years the powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined
The operative phrase: "What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts"
Amusing how you hide from it and post replies to arguments of your own making. You have a mildly severe case of wingnut dis-ease
A quiet and somber man whose sour expression masked a dry wit, Calvin Coolidge was known as "Silent Cal." After learning of his ascendancy to President on the death of Warren Harding in 1923, Coolidge was sworn in by his father, a justice of the peace, and promptly went back to bed.
I get it...That was a Great job of Gooling for an opinion that matched yours.
Yet, the words of Madison are now supposed to carry weight and veracity when they reflect your central authoritarian politics, but are irrelevant when you have a SCOTUS ruling to cower behind?
Interesting.
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of strict construction was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
Has the 10th been amendended? If it hasn't then 220 years the powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined
The operative phrase: "What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts"
Amusing how you hide from it and post replies to arguments of your own making. You have a mildly severe case of wingnut dis-ease
What's amusing is that you respond but will not answer the question. So I will directly ask you the question
Has the tenth Amendment beed repealed?
I get it...That was a Great job of Gooling for an opinion that matched yours.
Yet, the words of Madison are now supposed to carry weight and veracity when they reflect your central authoritarian politics, but are irrelevant when you have a SCOTUS ruling to cower behind?
Interesting.
I actually don't really have an opinion on the political structures states should or should not be able to institute in the theoretical absence of Article IV. Someone asked why states have the structures they do--that's why they do.
Are you familiar with the concept of a value neutral statement? Or do all statements of fact have ideological purpose in your eyes?
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of strict construction was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
Philosophical approaches to the question of the scope of federal power have differed, going all the way back to the founding generation. You can find signers of the Constitution who took opposite sides on this issue (including the two primary authors of the Federalist papers, Madison and Hamilton). It's a debate that has been with us since the beginning and it has been at the center of many of the big events in American history. We fought a civil war over it, we now have thousands of pages of case law concerning it, more than two centuries of precedents, etc and yet it remains largely an open question (under what conditions do the powers granted in the Commerce Clause apply? how elastic is the elastic clause? do we prefer Jefferson's or Hamilton's interpretation of the general welfare clause?). There is no definitive answer to these questions. Instead we have an ongoing political debate that ebbs and flows based on political events--elections.
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Jefferson's formulation of this doctrine of strict construction was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
Too bad Jefferson's one-man's-opinions were never the last word, then or now.
Let's see what you said about the Madison quote
"So Jefferson was a one man's opinion but you take Madisons word as gospel? Just because Jeffersons opinion supersedes your opinion you get pissed.thank you for quoting something of substance, as opposed to writing the type of shit that some people here pass off as original thoughts.
Thomas Jeffersons Other Declaration
Some people are surprised to learn that in response to these acts, Jefferson did not hold up the First Amendment in protest. Rather he invoked the Tenth Amendment, which states that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had over stepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the states.
In other words, the Alien and Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation.
James Madison corresponded with Jefferson about these issues, (they suspected that their mail was being secretly opened and read by the way). As a result of their correspondence, James Madison penned another series of resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Virginia legislature in 1798 and 1799.
Thomas Jeffersons Other Declaration Tenth Amendment Center
Has the 10th been amendended? If it hasn't then 220 years the powers of the Federal Government have been legally defined
The operative phrase: "What you can't do is define the Constitution the way you want it to read. That is why we have courts"
Amusing how you hide from it and post replies to arguments of your own making. You have a mildly severe case of wingnut dis-ease
What's amusing is that you respond but will not answer the question. So I will directly ask you the question
Has the tenth Amendment beed repealed?
