Is this true: Democrat loot?

[Yurt]

i don't even have to imagine the number of responses this thread would have if it was about republican loot....

seriously, i expected more honesty from some of the libs on this board...

 

[Foxfyre]

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.

No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--

unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.

sorry 'bout that.

Nope. Congress has full right and authority to clarify that at any time as it is not now specified in the Constitution. And should the courts challenge Congress's inerpretation, the Congress has full right and authority to introduce any amendment to the Constitution that it chooses to introduce, and if there are the requisite number of votes there, then the people will decide the matter.

The Supreme Court can point out if one clause of the Constitution contradicts another, but the Supreme Court cannot rule anything in the Constitution unconstitutional.

 

[Foxfyre]

That isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.

good luck with that

how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?

how would government contracts ever be filled?

Let us not forget that reality is not evenly distributed.

That is--some districts need more funding while others do not.

It should not be prerogative of the Federal government to determine what districts need more funding and which ones don't. It should be the Federal government's ONLY duty to secure our rights, be in a position to defend our rights, and then leave it to the people to work out whatever they need to work out at the state, district, country, municipal, and/or personal level. It was never intended that the federal government would order the society that the government wants. It was intended that the people, with their rights secured, would be free to order whatever society they wanted.

 

[maineman]

Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.

No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--

unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.

sorry 'bout that.

Nope. Congress has full right and authority to clarify that at any time as it is not now specified in the Constitution. And should the courts challenge Congress's inerpretation, the Congress has full right and authority to introduce any amendment to the Constitution that it chooses to introduce, and if there are the requisite number of votes there, then the people will decide the matter.

The Supreme Court can point out if one clause of the Constitution contradicts another, but the Supreme Court cannot rule anything in the Constitution unconstitutional.

good luck with THAT!

 

[maineman]

i don't even have to imagine the number of responses this thread would have if it was about republican loot....

seriously, i expected more honesty from some of the libs on this board...

and seriously, I fully expected you to resort to straw men. I was QUITE honest in my response. Have you bothered to expand your vocabulary to include the word "payola" yet?

 

[The T]

unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.

sorry 'bout that.

Nope. Congress has full right and authority to clarify that at any time as it is not now specified in the Constitution. And should the courts challenge Congress's inerpretation, the Congress has full right and authority to introduce any amendment to the Constitution that it chooses to introduce, and if there are the requisite number of votes there, then the people will decide the matter.

The Supreme Court can point out if one clause of the Constitution contradicts another, but the Supreme Court cannot rule anything in the Constitution unconstitutional.

good luck with THAT!

The Courts are NEVER the final arbitor on questions of the Constitution. Take any Constitutional challange (Law) the court has ruled upon. Does it stop there? NO. The Congress has the authority to override the Court with the Amendment process.

Ultimately? The people have the final say. That is what Representive government is all about in the eyes of the Founders. Remember the three branches of government are separate but equal.

End story.