Do you want to be a member of the Party of 'No'?

[xotoxi]

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

I'm not saying that the Constitution needs to be amended. Laws that are created by legislation do not alter the Constitution.

However, there ARE laws that are written that are outside the powers of the Congress and these are un-Constitutional. They do not need to alter the Constitution to be un-Constitutional.

If the Congress wishes to have the powers to write such laws, they need to get the people to agree to that power through an Amendment.

For example?

 

[Liability]

Absotively.

Posalutely!

 

[Darkwind]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

Congress staying within Constitutional bounds is like Congress staying within a budget

Suppose to happen, rarely does.

The problem is, it never will as long as we do not hold them to account for their misdeeds.

And as long as the people keep getting money from their representatives, they will forever remain bought.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not saying that the Constitution needs to be amended. Laws that are created by legislation do not alter the Constitution.

However, there ARE laws that are written that are outside the powers of the Congress and these are un-Constitutional. They do not need to alter the Constitution to be un-Constitutional.

If the Congress wishes to have the powers to write such laws, they need to get the people to agree to that power through an Amendment.

For example?

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

 

[Charles Stucker]

And here I thought you were talking about James Bond.
Dr. No threw pretty bland parties. Some Brit kept crashing them.

 

[xotoxi]

However, there ARE laws that are written that are outside the powers of the Congress and these are un-Constitutional. They do not need to alter the Constitution to be un-Constitutional.

If the Congress wishes to have the powers to write such laws, they need to get the people to agree to that power through an Amendment.

For example?

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

 

[Darkwind]

And here I thought you were talking about James Bond.
Dr. No threw pretty bland parties. Some Brit kept crashing them.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

At this point i wear that badge as a badge of honor. The Socialists have already sunk many future generations to come. More brave politicians should have stood up and said No to them. Might be too late now.

 

[Darkwind]

For example?

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

Are you serious? Do you actually think that the Congress has the authority to require specific behavior from the citizens? That they can, at their whim, write any law that forces the people to act in a manner they deem appropriate?

Outside of the fact that there is no explicit authority given to the Congress to do so, there ARE two Amendments that limit the power of the Federal Government.

You do realize that the Constitution is a document that limits the power of government, right?

Let Me correct that a bit. The Bill of Rights was added to strengthen the limiting power of the Constitution upon the Government.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

There is absolutely no need to return to a pre-industrial age, though your support of the lefts religion would like nothing better.

We just need to return to the boundaries of the Constitution and allow the States to decide their own destiny under the protective umbrella of the United States.

 

[hjmick]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

That would certainly satisfy all the global warming alarmists.

 

[xotoxi]

Why not take the topic de jour.

Where does the Congress derive the authority to determine who should and should not have health insurance? Where to they get the authority to write laws that require specific behavior from the people they govern?

Where are they forbidden from that authority?

Are you serious? Do you actually think that the Congress has the authority to require specific behavior from the citizens? That they can, at their whim, write any law that forces the people to act in a manner they deem appropriate?

Outside of the fact that there is no explicit authority given to the Congress to do so, there ARE two Amendments that limit the power of the Federal Government.

You do realize that the Constitution is a document that limits the power of government, right?

Let Me correct that a bit. The Bill of Rights was added to strengthen the limiting power of the Constitution upon the Government.

Forgive me if I am not well versed in everything that is written in the Constitution. I'm hoping to learn more about it through discussion.

 

[Xenophon]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

I could be considered a founding member.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

There is absolutely no need to return to a pre-industrial age, though your support of the lefts religion would like nothing better.

We just need to return to the boundaries of the Constitution and allow the States to decide their own destiny under the protective umbrella of the United States.

Excuse me..I have been corrected

We need to bring the country back to where it was before the Civil War

Bloody Kansas anyone?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

More brave politicians should have just said no. The Socialists really have sunk many future generations to come. Sometimes saying no is the right thing to do. Unfortunately too many politicians have forgotten this.

 

[xsited1]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

On the scale of trolliness, I'll give your post a 6. Not bad, but there is certainly room for improvement.

 

[Darkwind]

Sounds fun

Lets bring the country back to where it was before the Industrial Revolution

There is absolutely no need to return to a pre-industrial age, though your support of the lefts religion would like nothing better.

We just need to return to the boundaries of the Constitution and allow the States to decide their own destiny under the protective umbrella of the United States.

Excuse me..I have been corrected

We need to bring the country back to where it was before the Civil War

Bloody Kansas anyone?

you people crack Me up.

As if a return to the Boundaries is somehow akin to massacring people....It sure is a warped way to look at things. But when you worship the Pope (Federal Government) of the Lefts religion, I suppose that is the only way it can be justified.

 

[xsited1]

There is absolutely no need to return to a pre-industrial age, though your support of the lefts religion would like nothing better.

We just need to return to the boundaries of the Constitution and allow the States to decide their own destiny under the protective umbrella of the United States.

Excuse me..I have been corrected

We need to bring the country back to where it was before the Civil War

Bloody Kansas anyone?

you people crack Me up.

As if a return to the Boundaries is somehow akin to massacring people....It sure is a warped to look at things. But when you worship the Pope (Federal Government) of the Lefts religion, I suppose that is the only way it can be justified.

Rightwinger is a bigger troll than I thought. I bow to his trolliness.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.