Liberal war on the Constitution, again

[C_Clayton_Jones]

besides, we both know that liberals wouldn't stop at banning them for hunting. They would move into the other uses for lead bullets.

Nonsense.

‘Liberals’ have no intent on banning any type of gun; they’ve accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law, and have moved on. It’s only the nitwit right that refuses to do so in an attempt to keep a non-issue alive.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There's a right to bear arms.

it's not the right to bear arms except.

besides, we both know that liberals wouldn't stop at banning them for hunting. They would move into the other uses for lead bullets.


however;

Discussion Topic: Is Hunting a Right or a Privilege? | Field & Stream

Tennessee’s The Chattanoogan is following the progress of a legislative proposal that would make hunting a right in the state. From a May article:

Sportsmen want to amend Tennessee's constitution to guarantee the "right" to hunt and fish. Some sportsmen say it is necessary to protect their institution from animal-rights activists.

At least ten other states have already passed similar measures.




Seems it is, in some states

Hunting has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States.

oh Sallow, ever the believer.


so tell me, is the right to bear arms just guns?

If you think it is, you're wrong, but you've been taught that, b/c the last time we had the right to bear arms was in the 30's. with the constant attack from liberals on the Constitution, people forget what freedom is, and just accept taking away more as some vile pile that all must swallow.

Liberals seem to want to restrict the Constitution strictly within the precise parameters to which it was written, where it suits them. Examples of which are the basic views of the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms or the when the Constitution declares for the provision to provide for the common defense of the United States (an army, navy, etc.). Yet bring a discussion with regard to a government Health Care program and they will paint the Constitution with the widest brush they can find, making declarations of "interpretations" that the Founders never established for the role of Government in the first place. It's interesting how the Constitution seems to get re-invented based upon what it ought to have included, for what they deemed as simply - "for the overall benefit of the public as a whole".

 

[Sallow]

besides, we both know that liberals wouldn't stop at banning them for hunting. They would move into the other uses for lead bullets.

Nonsense.

‘Liberals’ have no intent on banning any type of gun; they’ve accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law, and have moved on. It’s only the nitwit right that refuses to do so in an attempt to keep a non-issue alive.

Even with that..it's not enough of a victory..as the "Stand your ground" laws have shown.

 

[Sallow]

Hunting has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States.

oh Sallow, ever the believer.


so tell me, is the right to bear arms just guns?

If you think it is, you're wrong, but you've been taught that, b/c the last time we had the right to bear arms was in the 30's. with the constant attack from liberals on the Constitution, people forget what freedom is, and just accept taking away more as some vile pile that all must swallow.

Liberals seem to want to restrict the Constitution strictly within the parameters to which it was wriiten, where it suits them. Examples of which are the basic views of the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms or the when the Constitution declares for the provision to provide for the common defense of the United States (an army, navy, etc.). Yet bring a discussion with regard to a government Health Care program and they will paint the Constitution with the widest brush they can find, making declarations of "interpretations" that the Founders never established for the role of Government in the first place. It's interesting how the Constitution seems to get re-invented based upon what it ought to have included, for what they deemed as simply - "for the overall benefit of the public as a whole".

The Constitution makes no provision for a permanent army. The navy, however, is permanent. And both were meant to be defensive. Iraq like many other invasions, seem to be breaches of the Constitution conservatives have no problem with whatsoever.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

oh Sallow, ever the believer.


so tell me, is the right to bear arms just guns?

If you think it is, you're wrong, but you've been taught that, b/c the last time we had the right to bear arms was in the 30's. with the constant attack from liberals on the Constitution, people forget what freedom is, and just accept taking away more as some vile pile that all must swallow.

Liberals seem to want to restrict the Constitution strictly within the parameters to which it was wriiten, where it suits them. Examples of which are the basic views of the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms or the when the Constitution declares for the provision to provide for the common defense of the United States (an army, navy, etc.). Yet bring a discussion with regard to a government Health Care program and they will paint the Constitution with the widest brush they can find, making declarations of "interpretations" that the Founders never established for the role of Government in the first place. It's interesting how the Constitution seems to get re-invented based upon what it ought to have included, for what they deemed as simply - "for the overall benefit of the public as a whole".

The Constitution makes no provision for a permanent army. The navy, however, is permanent. And both were meant to be defensive. Iraq like many other invasions, seem to be breaches of the Constitution conservatives have no problem with whatsoever.

Based upon similar "language", the Constitution makes no provision for government to provide social security, or the direct involvement of the Federal Government as stated under Obama's new Health Care law.

 

[Sallow]

Liberals seem to want to restrict the Constitution strictly within the parameters to which it was wriiten, where it suits them. Examples of which are the basic views of the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms or the when the Constitution declares for the provision to provide for the common defense of the United States (an army, navy, etc.). Yet bring a discussion with regard to a government Health Care program and they will paint the Constitution with the widest brush they can find, making declarations of "interpretations" that the Founders never established for the role of Government in the first place. It's interesting how the Constitution seems to get re-invented based upon what it ought to have included, for what they deemed as simply - "for the overall benefit of the public as a whole".

The Constitution makes no provision for a permanent army. The navy, however, is permanent. And both were meant to be defensive. Iraq like many other invasions, seem to be breaches of the Constitution conservatives have no problem with whatsoever.

Based upon similar "language", the Constitution makes no provision for a government to provide social security, or the direct involvement of the Federal Government as stated under Obama's new Health Care law.

That's correct. Which is why congress has some very broad powers over commerce and general welfare.

The founders knew that they needed a robust government able to deal with future challenges as they arose.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Constitution makes no provision for a permanent army. The navy, however, is permanent. And both were meant to be defensive. Iraq like many other invasions, seem to be breaches of the Constitution conservatives have no problem with whatsoever.

Based upon similar "language", the Constitution makes no provision for a government to provide social security, or the direct involvement of the Federal Government as stated under Obama's new Health Care law.

That's correct. Which is why congress has some very broad powers over commerce and general welfare.

The founders knew that they needed a robust government able to deal with future challenges as they arose.

To promote for the general welfare, not to provide. THAT language is very specific with what our Founders had wanted from their new Government. However it does make specific mention for the provision for the common defense. Did you not notice the two very different yet very specific words that were chosen for each?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not appear the Founders alloted for broad powers from their Congress, they were very precise in their declaration above (as well as "granted" under this Constitution for the United States) with respect as to what would to be allowed for the role of government.

 

[Sallow]

Based upon similar "language", the Constitution makes no provision for a government to provide social security, or the direct involvement of the Federal Government as stated under Obama's new Health Care law.

That's correct. Which is why congress has some very broad powers over commerce and general welfare.

The founders knew that they needed a robust government able to deal with future challenges as they arose.

To promote for the general welfare, not to provide. THAT language is very specific with what our Founders had wanted from their new Government. However it does make specific mention for the provision for the common defense. Did you not notice the two very different yet very specific words that were chosen for each?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not appear the Founders alloted for broad powers from their Congress, they were very precise in their declaration above (as well as "granted" under this Constitution for the United States) with respect as to what would to be allowed for the role of government.

Hey if you want to get into word games..fine.

The Constitution NEVER provides for an OFFENSIVE military.

You go with that.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says a right to bear arms.......it says nothing about bullets

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That's correct. Which is why congress has some very broad powers over commerce and general welfare.

The founders knew that they needed a robust government able to deal with future challenges as they arose.

To promote for the general welfare, not to provide. THAT language is very specific with what our Founders had wanted from their new Government. However it does make specific mention for the provision for the common defense. Did you not notice the two very different yet very specific words that were chosen for each?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not appear the Founders alloted for broad powers from their Congress, they were very precise in their declaration above (as well as "granted" under this Constitution for the United States) with respect as to what would to be allowed for the role of government.

Hey if you want to get into word games..fine.

The Constitution NEVER provides for an OFFENSIVE military.

You go with that.

Article. I.
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power . . .

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I don't know, the last I checked "Declaring War" sounds a lot like an offensive request for the use of the military by Congress. Did we not use the military offensively when landing on the beaches of Normandy? Care to try again Sallow?

 

[Sallow]

To promote for the general welfare, not to provide. THAT language is very specific with what our Founders had wanted from their new Government. However it does make specific mention for the provision for the common defense. Did you not notice the two very different yet very specific words that were chosen for each?



It does not appear the Founders alloted for broad powers from their Congress, they were very precise in their declaration above (as well as "granted" under this Constitution for the United States) with respect as to what would to be allowed for the role of government.

Hey if you want to get into word games..fine.

The Constitution NEVER provides for an OFFENSIVE military.

You go with that.

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I don't know, the last I checked "Declaring War" sounds a lot like an offensive request for the use of the military by Congress. Did we not use the military offensively when landing on the beaches of Normandy? Care to try again Shallow?

Try what again.

You skipped over a good deal of the Constitution.

Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Dragon]

The Preamble has no legal force. The phrase "provide for the general welfare" appears with legal force in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, as a modifier on the enumerated power to tax and spend.

That said, this is quite sufficient to authorize Social Security.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hey if you want to get into word games..fine.

The Constitution NEVER provides for an OFFENSIVE military.

You go with that.

I don't know, the last I checked "Declaring War" sounds a lot like an offensive request for the use of the military by Congress. Did we not use the military offensively when landing on the beaches of Normandy? Care to try again Shallow?

Try what again.

You skipped over a good deal of the Constitution.

Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

and it says specifically Congress shall have the power to Declare War. I notice how you didn't want to include THAT section of my response in your reply now did you? Why not? Afraid to be proven wrong? Was Normandy purely a defensive use of our military? Can you site how that invasion was not Constitutional? Let's start with that little "oops" in your discussion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Preamble has no legal force. The phrase "provide for the general welfare" appears with legal force in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, as a modifier on the enumerated power to tax and spend.

That said, this is quite sufficient to authorize Social Security.

The preamble shows the overall vision and purpose of what the Founders wanted of our government, what follows are the "specifics" with which that is to be achieved. You are making the claim that the preamble is irrelevant, and we can simply "skip over" or blott it out. The Founders wouldn't have used such specific wording and taken the necessary time to include this statement (with all the debates over proper wording and possible interpretation) if it wasn't significant.


Again the vision of government was to promote for the general welfare, later to be followed by how that is to be achieved through the "proper" role of government.

 

[Dragon]

The preamble shows the overall vision and purpose of what the Founders wanted of our government, what follows are the "specifics" with which that is to be achieved. You are making the claim that the preamble is irrelevant

No, I'm making the claim that it has no legal force, and it does not. If you want to take it as showing the "overall vision and purpose" of the founders as a philosophical or rhetorical exercise, have at it. It still has no legal force.

There is no general power to either "promote" or "provide for" the general welfare. The powers of the federal government are set out in Article I, Section 8, not in the Preamble. There is a power to lay and collect taxes, and by implication to spend the revenues collected in doing so, to do several things, one of which is to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The government is not empowered to do anything other than tax and spend for this purpose; its other powers are set forth in the remainder of that section.

For someone whose posting name is all about the hazards of big government, you sure are treading dangerous ground. If we were to take the Preamble as actually delegating federal powers, it would gain the power to do whatever it wants to "create a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." Frankly, I'm unwilling to trust the government with that kind of blanket authorization, and I'm astonished that you are.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The preamble shows the overall vision and purpose of what the Founders wanted of our government, what follows are the "specifics" with which that is to be achieved. You are making the claim that the preamble is irrelevant

No, I'm making the claim that it has no legal force, and it does not. If you want to take it as showing the "overall vision and purpose" of the founders as a philosophical or rhetorical exercise, have at it. It still has no legal force.

There is no general power to either "promote" or "provide for" the general welfare. The powers of the federal government are set out in Article I, Section 8, not in the Preamble. There is a power to lay and collect taxes, and by implication to spend the revenues collected in doing so, to do several things, one of which is to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The government is not empowered to do anything other than tax and spend for this purpose; its other powers are set forth in the remainder of that section.

For someone whose posting name is all about the hazards of big government, you sure are treading dangerous ground. If we were to take the Preamble as actually delegating federal powers, it would gain the power to do whatever it wants to "create a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." Frankly, I'm unwilling to trust the government with that kind of blanket authorization, and I'm astonished that you are.

The preamble is the hope the Founders had for our country, I stated that the specifics on HOW that is to be achieved is through government's limited role, as written under the Articles. For example - How is the government to promote the general welfare, in what ways are they meant to accomplish this. Somehow, over the years, politicians have exchanged promote to say . . . what the Founders REALLY meant was to "provide" all these services, thus changing the very fabric of the meaning of the Constitution to fit their own "power hungry political big government intrusion over it's own people" purpose (not to that role which government was initially intended to perform). Remember it's We the People that's meant to have control over the government, not the other way around.

 

[Sallow]

I don't know, the last I checked "Declaring War" sounds a lot like an offensive request for the use of the military by Congress. Did we not use the military offensively when landing on the beaches of Normandy? Care to try again Shallow?

Try what again.

You skipped over a good deal of the Constitution.

Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

and it says specifically Congress shall have the power to Declare War. I notice how you didn't want to include THAT section of my response in your reply now did you? Why not? Afraid to be proven wrong? Was Normandy purely a defensive use of our military? Can you site how that invasion was not Constitutional? Let's start with that little "oops" in your discussion.

Yes. And there are 2..reasons to do so.

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


You have trouble with English?

 

[Dragon]

The preamble is the hope the Founders had for our country, I stated that the specifics on HOW that is to be achieved is through government's limited role, as written under the Articles.

Well, yeah, it's "limited" in the sense of not being "unlimited." Some of the powers granted are pretty durn broad, though. So it's not as limited as you would probably prefer.

For example - How is the government to promote the general welfare, in what ways are they meant to accomplish this. Somehow, over the years, politicians have exchanged promote to say . . . what the Founders REALLY meant was to "provide" all these services, thus changing the very fabric of the meaning of the Constitution

Nah. It's perfectly clear how the government is empowered to promote the general welfare. One way is to tax and spend in order to provide for the general welfare. Others are also spelled out in other parts of the same section.

As I said, the Preamble has no legal force. Therefore, nobody has argued that the government has the authority to, say, create an old-age pension program, by reference to the Preamble. Thus, your implication that people have erred by switching the wording in the Preamble is inaccurate. Instead, the argument is that the government is entitled to lay and collect taxes and spend tax revenues in order to provide for the general welfare, not in the Preamble but in Article I, Section 8, which, unlike the Preamble, DOES have legal force, and which, unlike the Preamble, actually spells out the powers of the federal government.

So if you think that's wrong, you need to address the part of the Constitution which is actually believed to empower the action, not the Preamble.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Try what again.

You skipped over a good deal of the Constitution.

and it says specifically Congress shall have the power to Declare War. I notice how you didn't want to include THAT section of my response in your reply now did you? Why not? Afraid to be proven wrong? Was Normandy purely a defensive use of our military? Can you site how that invasion was not Constitutional? Let's start with that little "oops" in your discussion.

Yes. And there are 2..reasons to do so.

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


You have trouble with English?

So you are telling me a Declaration of War is never to be seen as an offensive term. Yet you are unwilling to show under Section 8 dictating the role of Congress, how an offensive invasion of the Germans at Normandy is unConstitutional. Why is that?

 

[Dragon]

So you are telling me a Declaration of War is never to be seen as an offensive term. Yet you are unwilling to show under Section 8 dictating the role of Congress, how an offensive invasion of the Germans at Normandy is unConstitutional. Why is that?

Actually, what he's doing is playing with your head, 'cause he considers you to be an irrational, delusional wacko with whom one cannot have a serious, intelligent conversation.

You're welcome.