Govt: "Run it like a business"??? WHY???

[DiamondDave]

Thats the point of the debate...for you to explain it to me. Go!

If it is un-Constitutional for the Feds to do it....then it probably isn't legal for the state or city to do it either.

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

No.. you are absolutely and 100% WRONG

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.

That indeed leaves it up to the states (who actually empowered, via the constitution, the federal government) to do things that the fed is not charged or empowered to do... I.E. if the state wants medical care for its citizenry, if they want a caucus instead of a primary, if they want to fund a college, etc...

It is not in violation of the constitution to do these things even if the federal government is not empowered to do them

Jeez.. learn a little

 

[Ernie S.]

Thats the point of the debate...for you to explain it to me. Go!

If it is un-Constitutional for the Feds to do it....then it probably isn't legal for the state or city to do it either.

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

Sorry, no. Try reading the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

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.

That means, everything not covered specifically by Article 1, section 8 is the purview of the several States, or the people.

 

[bucs90]

Lets say 1,000 private sector companies use a certain thing to make money. Like...........the South Carolina State Ports Authority!!! Yep. Huge port here. All the big businesses of the private sector use it, like BMW who ships cars through.

Well, it's located in Charleston County, city of North Charleston, Charleston and Mount Pleasant. It ships goods on US17, and up to I-95. Both run through some very poor counties with small populations.

Now.....should the taxpayers of Charleston County and those cities be the only ones who fund that port? LOTS of states, cities and private business profit as a result of it being there.

What about US17 and I95? Those goods travel those roads. BUT....there are very few people living in many areas those roads go through taking goods all across the nation.

To be consistent, the TP'ers would argue that ONLY the people living in the counties of those highways should pay for them to be maintained, that the FEDS have no place doing so, despite the nation benefitting from that road.

So a person living in....say, Kansas City.......may in fact be buying a BMW shipped to the Charleston port, and sent to Missouri through US17, I-94, I-85 and so forth...............but he may bitch about why his federal tax dollars are spent maintaining roads in South Carolina when he lives in KC. Those are a local issue, Feds have no business fixing roads in SC.

Well, the Feds aid local PD's and road maintenance because, well, the whole nation benefits from things like the Charleston Port, and I-95 and US17 and other major roads.

The tax burder of repairing a bridge on I-95 in Orangeburg County, SC, shouldn't fall on Orangeburg residents only........just so someone in NYC can get a BMW shipped to them from the Charleston Port.

Thats why the Feds maintain roads.

 

[bucs90]

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

No.. you are absolutely and 100% WRONG

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.

That indeed leaves it up to the states (who actually empowered, via the constitution, the federal government) to do things that the fed is not charged or empowered to do... I.E. if the state wants medical care for its citizenry, if they want a caucus instead of a primary, if they want to fund a college, etc...

It is not in violation of the constitution to do these things even if the federal government is not empowered to do them

Jeez.. learn a little

So a state can empower itself to do something that would be a violation of the US Constitution?

 

[bucs90]

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

Sorry, no. Try reading the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

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.

That means, everything not covered specifically by Article 1, section 8 is the purview of the several States, or the people.

So is the FBI un-Constitutional? Are Air Marshalls un-Constitutional?

What about the Feds helping maintain parts of I-95 in rural Orangeburg County, SC?

 

[DiamondDave]

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

No.. you are absolutely and 100% WRONG

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.

That indeed leaves it up to the states (who actually empowered, via the constitution, the federal government) to do things that the fed is not charged or empowered to do... I.E. if the state wants medical care for its citizenry, if they want a caucus instead of a primary, if they want to fund a college, etc...

It is not in violation of the constitution to do these things even if the federal government is not empowered to do them

Jeez.. learn a little

So a state can empower itself to do something that would be a violation of the US Constitution?

It is not in violation of the constitution.. see the 10th amendment which I even places in that reply....

here it is AGAIN

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

Lets say 1,000 private sector companies use a certain thing to make money. Like...........the South Carolina State Ports Authority!!! Yep. Huge port here. All the big businesses of the private sector use it, like BMW who ships cars through.

Well, it's located in Charleston County, city of North Charleston, Charleston and Mount Pleasant. It ships goods on US17, and up to I-95. Both run through some very poor counties with small populations.

Now.....should the taxpayers of Charleston County and those cities be the only ones who fund that port? LOTS of states, cities and private business profit as a result of it being there.

What about US17 and I95? Those goods travel those roads. BUT....there are very few people living in many areas those roads go through taking goods all across the nation.

To be consistent, the TP'ers would argue that ONLY the people living in the counties of those highways should pay for them to be maintained, that the FEDS have no place doing so, despite the nation benefitting from that road.

So a person living in....say, Kansas City.......may in fact be buying a BMW shipped to the Charleston port, and sent to Missouri through US17, I-94, I-85 and so forth...............but he may bitch about why his federal tax dollars are spent maintaining roads in South Carolina when he lives in KC. Those are a local issue, Feds have no business fixing roads in SC.

Well, the Feds aid local PD's and road maintenance because, well, the whole nation benefits from things like the Charleston Port, and I-95 and US17 and other major roads.

The tax burder of repairing a bridge on I-95 in Orangeburg County, SC, shouldn't fall on Orangeburg residents only........just so someone in NYC can get a BMW shipped to them from the Charleston Port.

Thats why the Feds maintain roads.

See Article 1, section 8 clauses 1 and 3.

Please read the Constitution. It was written in simple language that the average citizen could understand.
Why is it that sometime since the federal government got involved in education, our highly educated citizens no longer grasp simple concepts?

 

[candycorn]

And you claimed that 90% of your conservative values remained despite your stupid selfish flip.

YOU ARE A JOKE AND A FRAUD

Only if you fall for his act.

 

[RDD_1210]

OF THE UNITED STATES... you fucking idiotic morons LOVE to stop the phrase where it suits YOU... it is of the UNION, not of the individuals.... there is NOWHERE AT ALL that the constitution is charged to take care of your PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, WANTS, OR NEEDS

And who makes up the United states? Does the Constitution say anything about that?

Let me check.....

Oh look at that.

It actually starts off with,

"We The People of the United States."

What do you know!

There is a goddamn difference between the union and the citizen.. and if about the individual, it would have been SPECIFICALLY written to say that...

The general welfare of the union itself does not always benefit every individual, nor should it be about that...

Try and read your constitution as a whole, and not just a couple words you pick out incompletely to try and sound like you know what you are talking about....

Oh.. and the preamble is an invocation or introduction, as you will.. and is not something that grants specific powers to the federal government....

Maybe you should go back to school and learn a little before you continue making yourself look like an idiot

LOL, get angry about it why don't ya? I'm sorry you are burdened that you have to live in a country that believes in supporting even those who are less fortunate. You can try and distort the meaning of the constitution in any way you want but the fact remains that our country is a great place to live because we don't leave people out in the cold and it is a place that you can have every opportunity to make something of yourself.

I realize this goes against your narrow view of the world and selfish desires, but keep creating strawman arguments and getting yourself worked up in to a tizzy over your warped vision of what our country should be.

 

[bucs90]

No.. you are absolutely and 100% WRONG

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.

That indeed leaves it up to the states (who actually empowered, via the constitution, the federal government) to do things that the fed is not charged or empowered to do... I.E. if the state wants medical care for its citizenry, if they want a caucus instead of a primary, if they want to fund a college, etc...

It is not in violation of the constitution to do these things even if the federal government is not empowered to do them

Jeez.. learn a little

So a state can empower itself to do something that would be a violation of the US Constitution?

It is not in violation of the constitution.. see the 10th amendment which I even places in that reply....

here it is AGAIN

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.

So a state can empower itselt to do something as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.....but doesn't need to be granted by it.

But the Feds can do ONLY what is granted to them by the Constitution.

So I ask again.....

Are the US Air Marshalls un-Constitutional?

Is the Border Patrol Constitutional? It's a civilian law enforcement agency, not military, guarding the borders of a state and waterway ports in a state.

Is it un-Constitutional for the Feds to help with funding to maintain a bridge on I-95 that runs through very poor counties of SC?

 

[DiamondDave]

And who makes up the United states? Does the Constitution say anything about that?

Let me check.....

Oh look at that.

It actually starts off with,

"We The People of the United States."

What do you know!

There is a goddamn difference between the union and the citizen.. and if about the individual, it would have been SPECIFICALLY written to say that...

The general welfare of the union itself does not always benefit every individual, nor should it be about that...

Try and read your constitution as a whole, and not just a couple words you pick out incompletely to try and sound like you know what you are talking about....

Oh.. and the preamble is an invocation or introduction, as you will.. and is not something that grants specific powers to the federal government....

Maybe you should go back to school and learn a little before you continue making yourself look like an idiot

LOL, get angry about it why don't ya? I'm sorry you are burdened that you have to live in a country that believes in supporting even those who are less fortunate. You can try and distort the meaning of the constitution in any way you want but the fact remains that our country is a great place to live because we don't leave people out in the cold and it is a place that you can have every opportunity to make something of yourself.

I realize this goes against your narrow view of the world and selfish desires, but keep creating strawman arguments and getting yourself worked up in to a tizzy over your warped vision of what our country should be.

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

 

[bucs90]

RD-1210, I provided them with several examples and gotten no response. My particular favorite:

Interstate 95, runs from NYC to Miami. Many companies ship their goods on it, and get rich doing so. Many people drive through SC on it for business, to get rich. Millions use it.

95 runs through Orangeburg County and Colleton County, SC. Two VERY poor, very rural counties. In a state that is overall fairly rural and poor also outside of metro areas.

According to the hardcore Constitutionalists, the Feds would have NO POWER to fund the maintenance of bridges on 95 in those two counties. ONLY the few very poor citizens living in them would.

Is that fair, when millions of non-SC residents rely on 95 to get rich and do business, as well as just vacation and travel?

Well, if you are true to the grand old document, yes, only the residents near those bridges should be paying for it's maintenance.

 

[RDD_1210]

There is a goddamn difference between the union and the citizen.. and if about the individual, it would have been SPECIFICALLY written to say that...

The general welfare of the union itself does not always benefit every individual, nor should it be about that...

Try and read your constitution as a whole, and not just a couple words you pick out incompletely to try and sound like you know what you are talking about....

Oh.. and the preamble is an invocation or introduction, as you will.. and is not something that grants specific powers to the federal government....

Maybe you should go back to school and learn a little before you continue making yourself look like an idiot

LOL, get angry about it why don't ya? I'm sorry you are burdened that you have to live in a country that believes in supporting even those who are less fortunate. You can try and distort the meaning of the constitution in any way you want but the fact remains that our country is a great place to live because we don't leave people out in the cold and it is a place that you can have every opportunity to make something of yourself.

I realize this goes against your narrow view of the world and selfish desires, but keep creating strawman arguments and getting yourself worked up in to a tizzy over your warped vision of what our country should be.

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.

 

[bucs90]

There is a goddamn difference between the union and the citizen.. and if about the individual, it would have been SPECIFICALLY written to say that...

The general welfare of the union itself does not always benefit every individual, nor should it be about that...

Try and read your constitution as a whole, and not just a couple words you pick out incompletely to try and sound like you know what you are talking about....

Oh.. and the preamble is an invocation or introduction, as you will.. and is not something that grants specific powers to the federal government....

Maybe you should go back to school and learn a little before you continue making yourself look like an idiot

LOL, get angry about it why don't ya? I'm sorry you are burdened that you have to live in a country that believes in supporting even those who are less fortunate. You can try and distort the meaning of the constitution in any way you want but the fact remains that our country is a great place to live because we don't leave people out in the cold and it is a place that you can have every opportunity to make something of yourself.

I realize this goes against your narrow view of the world and selfish desires, but keep creating strawman arguments and getting yourself worked up in to a tizzy over your warped vision of what our country should be.

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

Not gonna respond to my examples?

So the Feds should pull all aid from maintaining I-95 and I-85 in South Carolina? Only residents living near those highways should maintain them, despite the huge gains the private sector gets in NYC, ATL, Charlotte, Miami, etc, from shipping goods on them? Please remember to be consistent in your answer.

 

[DiamondDave]

So a state can empower itself to do something that would be a violation of the US Constitution?

It is not in violation of the constitution.. see the 10th amendment which I even places in that reply....

here it is AGAIN

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.

So a state can empower itselt to do something as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.....but doesn't need to be granted by it.

But the Feds can do ONLY what is granted to them by the Constitution.

So I ask again.....

Are the US Air Marshalls un-Constitutional?

Is the Border Patrol Constitutional? It's a civilian law enforcement agency, not military, guarding the borders of a state and waterway ports in a state.

Is it un-Constitutional for the Feds to help with funding to maintain a bridge on I-95 that runs through very poor counties of SC?

Air Marshals... interstate (see interstate commerce) and interborder (see foreign commerce) travel... the jurisdiction of the federal government, as is the enforcement of law related to it

Border patrol... national defense of the borders of the union

Interstate roads (not state roads or local roads or roads that cross state borders that all states where that road travels take care of their individual portions) are covered in the constitution

Please, for the love of god, read the constitution and educate yourself

 

[DiamondDave]

LOL, get angry about it why don't ya? I'm sorry you are burdened that you have to live in a country that believes in supporting even those who are less fortunate. You can try and distort the meaning of the constitution in any way you want but the fact remains that our country is a great place to live because we don't leave people out in the cold and it is a place that you can have every opportunity to make something of yourself.

I realize this goes against your narrow view of the world and selfish desires, but keep creating strawman arguments and getting yourself worked up in to a tizzy over your warped vision of what our country should be.

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.

No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...

The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'

the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie

 

[bucs90]

It is not in violation of the constitution.. see the 10th amendment which I even places in that reply....

here it is AGAIN

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.

So a state can empower itselt to do something as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.....but doesn't need to be granted by it.

But the Feds can do ONLY what is granted to them by the Constitution.

So I ask again.....

Are the US Air Marshalls un-Constitutional?

Is the Border Patrol Constitutional? It's a civilian law enforcement agency, not military, guarding the borders of a state and waterway ports in a state.

Is it un-Constitutional for the Feds to help with funding to maintain a bridge on I-95 that runs through very poor counties of SC?

Air Marshals... interstate (see interstate commerce) and interborder (see foreign commerce) travel... the jurisdiction of the federal government, as is the enforcement of law related to it

Border patrol... national defense of the borders of the union

Interstate roads (not state roads or local roads or roads that cross state borders that all states where that road travels take care of their individual portions) are covered in the constitution

Please, for the love of god, read the constitution and educate yourself

But another Tea Party member argued civilian law enforcement is NOT the same as national defense, and thus, the Feds are NOT entitled to provide financial aid to local police? National defense is just for the military. USBP isn't military. Unless you're gonna argue that police ARE part of national defense, and thus, the Feds would be empowered to provide financial aid to local PD's for the sake of national security....right?

And a flight from San Fran to LA isn't "interstate", it doesn't cross a state line. So why are my tax dollars in SC paying for the safety of hippies flying within the state of CA from San Fran to LA????


Do you know that the Interstate roads intersect with.........STATE AND CITY ROADS? Yep. It wont do BMW much good trying to get it's shipment of cars from Charleston to Atlanta and Nashville on I-26 and I-85.............if the South Carolina roads are crumbling. Which is why the Fed help keep access to them.


And finally, you're gonna admit that the Feds using Air Force C17's, and federal firefighters, to put out the Colorado fires was UNCONSTITUTIONAL? And, to be true to our Founding Fathers, we should've just let Colorado burn? Would the fathers have wanted us to interpret it that way?

 

[bucs90]

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.

No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...

The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'

the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie

So, in the original 13 states, under President George Washington, if one state suffered a horrific drought and famine........and needed the Federal help with food (like shipping food on US ships to them) would Washington had said "No, let them starve."

No, he wouldn't. He would've tried to send federal help if possible. Would he have violated the Constitution? Would he have been helping "The Union" or "The People" in that case?

 

[RDD_1210]

And you are FREE to support all the charities you want... that is a great thing about this country.. unfortunately for you, the government is not empowered to take care of or provide the individual wants, needs, or responsibilities for individual citizens...

But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.

No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...

The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'

the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie

So the Union is what then? It's made up of what?

 

[DiamondDave]

But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.

No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...

The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'

the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie

So, in the original 13 states, under President George Washington, if one state suffered a horrific drought and famine........and needed the Federal help with food (like shipping food on US ships to them) would Washington had said "No, let them starve."

No, he wouldn't. He would've tried to send federal help if possible. Would he have violated the Constitution? Would he have been helping "The Union" or "The People" in that case?

that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...

And you have zero basis in your assumption

And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you

Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"