Confederacy... will it return?

On the contrary! The Obama administration is the one who got it straight with California.

What violations of the constitution do you believe the Obama administration has made? You do realize that he taught constitutional law, right?

Oh great here we go again. Hang another GD halo on his bed post. The man does nothing wrong.

I wonder how many smokes he had today after signing that tobacco legislation?

I could care less how much he smokes. I actually commend him for doing so. It's the one politically incorrect thing he does.

OMG...I just laughed so hard, my politcally correct bottled artisian well water came out my nose. Yeah...he doesn't do ANYTHING politically incorrect. So, what DOES life look like when you bury your head in the sand? Personally, I've never had the view from that low of a position.
 
Oh great here we go again. Hang another GD halo on his bed post. The man does nothing wrong.

I wonder how many smokes he had today after signing that tobacco legislation?

I could care less how much he smokes. I actually commend him for doing so. It's the one politically incorrect thing he does.

OMG...I just laughed so hard, my politcally correct bottled artisian well water came out my nose. Yeah...he doesn't do ANYTHING politically incorrect. So, what DOES life look like when you bury your head in the sand? Personally, I've never had the view from that low of a position.

what does life look like? you'll have to ask some obamabots on this board.
 
Too early? It's clear the government has already gone beyond what the Constitution says it's allowed to do with private businesses, which is nothing.

Pssst! The companies came to the government, not vica versa.

FISA itself is unconstitutional, however.

How so?

It doesn't matter whether the companies came to the government. The government had no right to bail them out. Failed businesses should fail.

The Constitution does not give the government the right to spy on American citizens.
 
"Confederacy... will it return? "

No.

Next.

I like your directness! :lol:

So by your own admission, they ARE indeed "technically" taking over. Right???

It's ok... you can admit they did something wrong. They won't come kill you in your sleep. Not tonight anyway...

I said I believe they've crossed a few boundaries for my liking. However, I don't know that what they did was unconstitutional.

Is it? According to whom? He said he'd filibuster FISA and he voted for it. The verdict has been reached right there, Madame.

I'm really not familiar with FISA...how is it unconstitutional? I've asked you this three times now and you still haven't answered!
 
It doesn't matter whether the companies came to the government. The government had no right to bail them out. Failed businesses should fail.

That's not necessarily true! The United States is not strictly a capitalist economy...actually it's a mixed economy. Under that situation I don't think it wrong for the government to step in and help business when needed. It's a dance...a balance of sorts.


The Constitution does not give the government the right to spy on American citizens.

No...Bush made that into law. So...if it's law at this point, is it unconstitutional?
 
"Confederacy... will it return? "

No.

Next.

I like your directness! :lol:

So by your own admission, they ARE indeed "technically" taking over. Right???

It's ok... you can admit they did something wrong. They won't come kill you in your sleep. Not tonight anyway...

I said I believe they've crossed a few boundaries for my liking. However, I don't know that what they did was unconstitutional.

Is it? According to whom? He said he'd filibuster FISA and he voted for it. The verdict has been reached right there, Madame.

I'm really not familiar with FISA...how is it unconstitutional? I've asked you this three times now and you still haven't answered!

How is it unconstitutional? Kevin can explain it better than I can. I was hoping he would.
 
It doesn't matter whether the companies came to the government. The government had no right to bail them out. Failed businesses should fail.

That's not necessarily true! The United States is not strictly a capitalist economy...actually it's a mixed economy. Under that situation I don't think it wrong for the government to step in and help business when needed. It's a dance...a balance of sorts.


The Constitution does not give the government the right to spy on American citizens.

No...Bush made that into law. So...if it's law at this point, is it unconstitutional?

if a law is made stating newspapers will print ONLY what the government tells them, is it then constitutional, simply because it was signed into law?
 
It doesn't matter whether the companies came to the government. The government had no right to bail them out. Failed businesses should fail.

That's not necessarily true! The United States is not strictly a capitalist economy...actually it's a mixed economy. Under that situation I don't think it wrong for the government to step in and help business when needed. It's a dance...a balance of sorts.


The Constitution does not give the government the right to spy on American citizens.

No...Bush made that into law. So...if it's law at this point, is it unconstitutional?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should bail out companies, and how does the Constitution say they should decide on who gets and who doesn't get a bailout?

Yes, it's still unconstitutional.
 
How is it unconstitutional? Kevin can explain it better than I can. I was hoping he would.

Actually, kevin can't explain anything about the constitution. However, FISA SHOULD have been found to be unconstitutional because it allows warrantless wiretaps in violation of the fourth amendment.

Which part of the constitution does it violate?
 
How is it unconstitutional? Kevin can explain it better than I can. I was hoping he would.

Actually, kevin can't explain anything about the constitution. However, FISA SHOULD have been found to be unconstitutional because it allows warrantless wiretaps in violation of the fourth amendment.

Which part of the constitution does it violate?

i thought i answered that. do you want something more specific than fourth amendment?
 
"Confederacy... will it return? "

No.

Next.

I like your directness! :lol:

So by your own admission, they ARE indeed "technically" taking over. Right???

It's ok... you can admit they did something wrong. They won't come kill you in your sleep. Not tonight anyway...

I said I believe they've crossed a few boundaries for my liking. However, I don't know that what they did was unconstitutional.

Is it? According to whom? He said he'd filibuster FISA and he voted for it. The verdict has been reached right there, Madame.

I'm really not familiar with FISA...how is it unconstitutional? I've asked you this three times now and you still haven't answered!

Well, let's put it this way...they got away with it this time...there wil be more. Just wait and see.
 
if a law is made stating newspapers will print ONLY what the government tells them, is it then constitutional, simply because it was signed into law?

Not necessarily. I know there have been many laws that have been challenged and overturned as being unconstitutional. But, I'm not sure FISA is unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong! I hate the idea that our own government has the right to barge into our homes and do what they will. I hate the fact that they can listen in to my phone calls or confiscate my computer if they so choose! I don't think it's right, on a personal level...nor is it the America that I love. However, I'm still not sure that it's unconstitutional. I don't think anyone has challenged it in court, have they?
 
general welfare clause... read it. it's your friend....

*sigh*

The most contorted and abused thing in the entire document.

That passage gives no powers, but states a purpose for the fed. The actual powers are outlined - spelled out- and only those powers specifically spelled out in the constitution are held by the federal government; it is through the powers specifically spelled out and named ion the Constitution that they are to provide for the general welfare by overseeing those areas they are granted authority over in the text of the Constitution

Tenth amednment:
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.
 
Yes, the states have allowed the federal government to usurp their powers and delegate them to subordinate status.

ah...once again professing to be a constitutional expert. cute....

the states ARE subordinate to the Federal government. That is why the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

I'm not qute sure why this is so difficult for you.

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but it's pretty clear you have one.

At any rate, the states are not subordinates to the federal government. They are equal players in the Constitutional compact. The federal government has its jurisdiction, and the states have theirs.

If anyone would take the time to read it, the Constitution spells out the powers granted the federal government, the powers forbidden the federal government, the powers forbidden the states, and last but not least, clearly states: "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."

Actually, the reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by our Constitution were many, and included the following:

The legislative functions were vested in a Congress of one House, consisting of from two to seven members from each state, but each state had but one vote.

The executive functions were also left in the hands of Congress, but a large body cannot properly exercise executive decisions.

Each state regulated its own commerce as it saw fit, and imposed its own custom duties, not only upon goods imported from foreign countries but also upon importation's from neighboring states.

To amend the Articles the unanimous consent of the state legislatures was necessary, and this was a practical impossibility.

There were contentions over the western lands.

Sound money had practically disappeared from circulation, and the debtor class in many sections was in open revolt.

States legislated against each other.

Many questions with foreign nations had been left unsettled.

There are additional reasons, but these are some of the main ones.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top