Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[Foxfyre]

Since Interstate Commerce is the transfer of goods from one state to another and there is no mention of airlines being included in that--airlines are regulated by an entirely different agency and concept--

Are you making all the crap up on the fly or do you have it written down somewhere already? What "agency and concept" are they regulated under in the Constitution if not the commerce clause?

I think PC is on pretty solid ground if she said that airlines are not interstate commerce.

Perhaps you can find something that says they are.

Do you have a clue at all about anything? Seriously, can you be this stupid? Really? No way!!!!!! I don't fucking believe it!!!


Do I really have to explain to you why a business engaged in the flying of passengers and freight from one state to another qualifies as "commerce among the States" ? Are you seriously this brain dead? Are you like, 3?

Well, thank you for your kind and thoughtful concern for my mental state and age. But I'm reasonably certain that I am on mostly solid ground on this issue.

And since you seem to have nothing but insulting insinuations and hyperbole to offer to the discussion, and seem to have no inclination to do any of your own research or provide any of your own credible sources for your opinions, I'm going to go find something fun to do.

Do have a nice day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

I found the author of the Wiki article satisfactory as he or she provided the footnote reference, and suggest that it is reasonable to assume that were it inaccurate, knowledgeable readers of the article would have made said objections known.

Notice that I did not choose your response of 'I decline' when you asked for said support.

The historical difference between Hamilton and Jefferson, or Madison as to broad vs. strict interpretation is not in question, but whether or not Hamilton remained willing to quiet to facilitate ratification clearly is.

In New York the vote for ratification was 30-27 (for).

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, thank you for your kind and thoughtful concern for my mental state and age. But I'm reasonably certain that I am on mostly solid ground on this issue.

No, you're not. Interstate transportation falls under the commerce clause. I seriously can't conceive of how you could be this brain dead.

And since you seem to have nothing but insulting insinuations and hyperbole to offer to the discussion, and seem to have no inclination to do any of your own research or provide any of your own credible sources for your opinions, I'm going to go find something fun to do.

What research have YOU done? You've clearly not bothered to read ANYTHING having to do with the Commerce Clause! You don't even know the fucking definition of interstate commerce!



You have got to be the dumbest poster on here.


And yet

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that if you're going to claim something true, you should check to make sure its true first. That's just "common sense" as you like to put it.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that if you're going to claim something true, you should check to make sure its true first. That's just "common sense" as you like to put it.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that.

Let's be very clear: you got evidence, you merely choose to fail to accept it. It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

I note that you omitted answering several of the questions that I have posed, thus identifying yourelf as a fraud.

Try again?

1. Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

Dodge much?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that if you're going to claim something true, you should check to make sure its true first. That's just "common sense" as you like to put it.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that.

"You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.


No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that."

Here is the original from the post:
"Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]"
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You have obviously either misread or fabricated the basis for your demand. Let's be kind and say you misread.

"...only after the Constitution had been ratified..." does not necessarily mean that he made arguments to the contrary prior to the ratification...merely that he waited until after etc. etc.

Therefore, you have no basis for claiming that the post stated "...evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification..." as the quote does not say that.
The operative term is 'after.'

I am asking you to verify that you understand this distinction.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Let's be very clear: you got evidence

You posted evidence of Hamilton's views after the Constitution was written, not evidence of what they were before.

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

We've already been over how that statement is in no way backed by the reference given. Did you forget already? I like how you apologize for not checking the references thoroughly and then continue on as if the fact that I checked them and they turned out not to back the statement doesn't even matter.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

I'm not going to have an argument about the commerce clause with someone who refuses to back any of their assertions about said clause with references to anything but her own gut feeling.

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

I've read the part on the welfare clause. Can you point out where Hamilton says he changed his mind after the Constitution was written?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Here is the original from the post:
"Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]"
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase in bold face is not justified. The author provides evidence of Hamilton's view AFTER ratification, that doesn't tell us what his view was BEFORE. Do you understand how time works?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's be very clear: you got evidence

You posted evidence of Hamilton's views after the Constitution was written, not evidence of what they were before.

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

We've already been over how that statement is in no way backed by the reference given. Did you forget already? I like how you apologize for not checking the references thoroughly and then continue on as if the fact that I checked them and they turned out not to back the statement doesn't even matter.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

I'm not going to have an argument about the commerce clause with someone who refuses to back any of their assertions about said clause with references to anything but her own gut feeling.

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

I've read the part on the welfare clause. Can you point out where Hamilton says he changed his mind after the Constitution was written?

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.

That gives you a score of, what... zero.

You must be an only child.

This is a give and take, not take and take.

Be sure to advise when you are prepared to do your part.

 

[Father Time]

Oh and seeing as how she's ignored counter arguments I'd say she is out of ammo.

Once again PC please show how airlines are not interstate commerce, or how the Constitution limits how much the government can regulate interstate commerce.

Since Interstate Commerce is the transfer of goods from one state to another and there is no mention of airlines being included in that

You really think they would've listed every conceivable type of business that qualifies as interstate commerce? Here's the definition of interstate commerce

Interstate commerce | Define Interstate commerce at Dictionary.com

"commerce, traffic, transportation, and exchange between state"
Emphasis mine.

Now I hope I don't have to explain how airlines qualify as transportation.

--airlines are regulated by an entirely different agency and concept--I think PC is on pretty solid ground if she said that airlines are not interstate commerce.

No, she's wrong and the fact that she refuses to address it should say a lot.

Perhaps you can find something that says they are.

Done, now it's your job to prove they aren't.

She has already cited the article and clause in the Constitution related to Interstate Commerce. Was there some part of that you didn't understand?

She cited it but then ignored what it actually meant.

Also, I don't know if she included the long standing debates on how much authority the government has to regulate interstate commerce and strict constitutionalists do have a different opinion about that than do people like - well you.

It says they have the power to regulate interstate commerce it doesn't put any limit on how much they may regulate it. If they want to pretend otherwise then they aren't being truthful to what it actually says.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.
.

I don't have to, you're not my fucking teacher.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do I really have to explain to you why a business engaged in the flying of passengers and freight from one state to another qualifies as "commerce among the States" ? Are you seriously this brain dead? Are you like, 3?
Well, thank you for your kind and thoughtful concern for my mental state and age. But I'm reasonably certain that I am on mostly solid ground on this issue.

Nope, ff, you are on quicksand. Interstate commerce clause does not apply to interstate commerce? Sheesh.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

I found the author of the Wiki article satisfactory as he or she provided the footnote reference, and suggest that it is reasonable to assume that were it inaccurate, knowledgeable readers of the article would have made said objections known.

Notice that I did not choose your response of 'I decline' when you asked for said support.

The historical difference between Hamilton and Jefferson, or Madison as to broad vs. strict interpretation is not in question, but whether or not Hamilton remained willing to quiet to facilitate ratification clearly is.

In New York the vote for ratification was 30-27 (for).

Nope, PC, you did not provide evidence that they had minor disagreements before. Go back and read Madison's notes of the Convention.

That only minor differences existed among the Founders at the Convention is flatly refuted by the need for a Bill of Rights and the huge fights for ratification in the three large population states.

==================================

Ratification Dates and Votes for instance (ratification votes in the states for the constitution) flatly refute PC's contention. http://www.usconstitution.net/ratifications.html

Each of the original thirteen states in the United States was invited to ratify the Constitution created in Philadelphia in 1787. The Constitution specified that nine ratifications would be sufficient to consider the Constitution accepted.

Some states ratified quickly, others had to hold several conventions to accept the Constitution — though all eventually did. This page lists the votes of each state's conventions.

September 17, 1787: The Constitutional Convention adjourns.

September 28, 1787: The Congress agrees to send the Constitution to the states for debate and ratification.

December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.

December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.

December 18, 1787: New Jersey ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.

January 2, 1788: Georgia ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.

January 9, 1788: Connecticut ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.

February 6, 1788: Massachusetts ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.

March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.

April 28, 1788: Maryland ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.

May 23, 1788: South Carolina ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.

June 21, 1788: New Hampshire ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.

June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.

July 26, 1788: New York ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.

August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.

November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.

May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"...But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate ..."
This is true. The level of debate on a public message board is not the same as would be required for a doctoral thesis.

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that if you're going to claim something true, you should check to make sure its true first. That's just "common sense" as you like to put it.

You asked for support for my post that Hamilton made his objections known after ratification, and I found and provided same.

No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that.

Let's be very clear: you got evidence, you merely choose to fail to accept it. It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

I note that you omitted answering several of the questions that I have posed, thus identifying yourelf as a fraud.

Try again?

1. Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

Dodge much?

The is exactly PC's point about herself: "It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "'I can't hear you, so you're not talking.'"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.
.

I don't have to, you're not my fucking teacher.

PC has to prove that Hamilton had only minor disagreements with Madison during the Convention. She can't, or won't, do that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.
.

I don't have to, you're not my fucking teacher.

The reason for indicating that you didn't answer the questions is to prove the paucity of your postition.

And you language indicates that you know it as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It doesn't take a PhD to realize that if you're going to claim something true, you should check to make sure its true first. That's just "common sense" as you like to put it.



No, I asked for evidence that he agreed with madison before ratification. I'm still waiting on that.

Let's be very clear: you got evidence, you merely choose to fail to accept it. It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

I note that you omitted answering several of the questions that I have posed, thus identifying yourelf as a fraud.

Try again?

1. Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

Dodge much?

The is exactly PC's point about herself: "It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "'I can't hear you, so you're not talking.'"

This is not the first time that you have had to rely on my language, and my posts to cobble together yours.

As they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Thanks so much.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Let's be very clear: you got evidence

You posted evidence of Hamilton's views after the Constitution was written, not evidence of what they were before.



We've already been over how that statement is in no way backed by the reference given. Did you forget already? I like how you apologize for not checking the references thoroughly and then continue on as if the fact that I checked them and they turned out not to back the statement doesn't even matter.


I'm not going to have an argument about the commerce clause with someone who refuses to back any of their assertions about said clause with references to anything but her own gut feeling.

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

I've read the part on the welfare clause. Can you point out where Hamilton says he changed his mind after the Constitution was written?

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.

That gives you a score of, what... zero.

You must be an only child.

This is a give and take, not take and take.

Be sure to advise when you are prepared to do your part.

No, its more like

I didn't answer question 1 because I don't justify stupid questions with answers.

I answered question 2 you just can't read.

I answered question 3 you just can't read.

I answered question 4 you just can't read.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...empt-for-the-constitution-17.html#post2252845

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.
.

I don't have to, you're not my fucking teacher.

The reason for indicating that you didn't answer the questions is to prove the paucity of your postition.

And you language indicates that you know it as well.

Except that I did in fact answer 3 of 4 - you just can't read.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...empt-for-the-constitution-17.html#post2252845

 

[SpidermanTuba]

PC has to prove that Hamilton had only minor disagreements with Madison during the Convention. She can't, or won't, do that.

PC - we're still waiting on this, whenever you're ready.