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 can't make Congress stop wasting tax dollars.
Immie
Is there anything you can't do under the Commerce Clause?
I think we did that already.I think we're getting close to hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del twice and rebooting the whole Gubbamint
Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"
We have ourselves a Torry traitor!
Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?
Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"
We have ourselves a Torry traitor!
Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?
cons sided with the Btrits during the revoloutionary war as well.
they were the torries.
The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point
The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point
Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.
The case under FDR where they found a man violated the "Commence Clause" for refusing to sell wheat HELD FOR HIS OWN USE back to the Gubbamint was the first of many bad SCOTUS rulings on point
Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.
I agree. Everytime the courts rule in favor of expanding govt power you are defeating the purpose of the constitution itself. I think if the courts don't know what to do they should rule in favor of ruling of limiting government and not expanding it.
I tend to think if the founders intended for these two clauses to mean "give the people whatever they want, and congress the power to DO whatever they want, with no regard for the tax or moral ramifications" they would have simply worded it more concisely and left out the apparent crypticness.
Certainly one of the Court's grossest violations of the Constitution, in my opinion.
I agree. Everytime the courts rule in favor of expanding govt power you are defeating the purpose of the constitution itself. I think if the courts don't know what to do they should rule in favor of ruling of limiting government and not expanding it.
I think allowing the government to determine the extent of the government's power in the first place is foolish.
Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"
We have ourselves a Torry traitor!
Frank......Can I interest you in a tar and feather suit?
cons sided with the Btrits during the revoloutionary war as well.
they were the torries.
All this debate on "General Welfare" and Commerce gives the Govt. the power to do whatever it chooses. Would you like to know what the father of the constitution had to say about that?
"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. Letter from James Madison to Joseph Cabell 1829
These mandates are EXACTLY what Madison was warning about and are EXACTLY what he and many many others including several courts have said is NOT a power that is granted to the Federal Govt.
All this debate on "General Welfare" and Commerce gives the Govt. the power to do whatever it chooses. Would you like to know what the father of the constitution had to say about that?
"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. Letter from James Madison to Joseph Cabell 1829
These mandates are EXACTLY what Madison was warning about and are EXACTLY what he and many many others including several courts have said is NOT a power that is granted to the Federal Govt.
Again I add, the if Sovereign States even dreamed this is what they were signing onto they would have told the Founders to "Fuck off! It's less oppressive under the Brits"
I agree. Unfortunately the Clowns iin Congress are shooting for the carte blanche.
Excuse me, you're use of French is un-American, I suppose someone like you still calls American fires French fries. Didn't you get the message from your leader? No card carrying jingo would ever speak/write in French, do you want to be kicked out of the party? Glen Beck will boot you, for sure!
I am part French. Canadian French, but French none the less. Sorry.