Nemo Judex In Parte Sua; "No person can be a judge of their own interest."

[The2ndAmendment]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

 

[ogibillm]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

 

[The2ndAmendment]

didn't say they were. but then, they get paid by the government. equipped by the government. various educational, housing, and health benefits from the government. they are used at the behest of the government.

how could we expect them not to vote in their own interests? we couldn't, so if the op's rule is followed, they couldn't vote.

If you can't tell the difference between people who work for benefits and those that just get them, then you're fatally stupid beyond anything I can help.

saintmichaeldefendthem

See my above post. I'm also explaining to these parasites that there's a difference between groups that MUST exist via the Constitution and groups that are forbidden by the 10th Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

 

[ogibillm]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

Your content was you weaseling out of uniformly applying your own principle.

Since politicians decide the size, scope, use, and compensation of the military by your standard they couldn't be allowed to vote.

so are you a weasel or do you stand by your principle and accept thatit would deny the military the vote

 

[NYcarbineer]

By your 'logic', gun owners should not be allowed to vote.

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof")

Necassary according to who? The true meaning according to who? Your argument requires that we accept you as defining both. And you play no direct role in interpreting the constitution or defining any legal term.

You're simply offering us a series of nested assumptions. I reject them as they are ludicrous. Of course people have the authority to vote in thier own self interest. No law, court or ruling has ever found otherwise. And the practical effects of your assumptions is that no one would be allowed to vote. As virtually every vote involves self interest.

Without our acceptance of your every assumption and made up legal definition you have no argument. And no one here or in our law accepts either.

Thats the problem with coming to us with nothing but subjective belief: you require our consent. Meaning you start the debate with your hat in hand, begging us to agree with you.

Um, no.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

Your content was you weaseling out of uniformly applying your own principle.

Since politicians decide the size, scope, use, and compensation of the military by your standard they couldn't be allowed to vote.

so are you a weasel or do you stand by your principle and accept thatit would deny the military the vote

Why do you immoral Leftists so despise the military that you think they are leeches ergo the stadard applies to them as well as real leeches such as yourself?

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

Your content was you weaseling out of uniformly applying your own principle.

Since politicians decide the size, scope, use, and compensation of the military by your standard they couldn't be allowed to vote.

so are you a weasel or do you stand by your principle and accept thatit would deny the military the vote

Why do you immoral Leftists so despise the military that you think they are leeches ergo the stadard applies to them as well as real leeches such as yourself?

Mikey....you really need to read the OP. Its the one that classifies any government employee as a parasite. And every soldier is a government employee.

 

[ogibillm]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

Your content was you weaseling out of uniformly applying your own principle.

Since politicians decide the size, scope, use, and compensation of the military by your standard they couldn't be allowed to vote.

so are you a weasel or do you stand by your principle and accept thatit would deny the military the vote

Why do you immoral Leftists so despise the military that you think they are leeches ergo the stadard applies to them as well as real leeches such as yourself?

take it up with The2ndAmendment, it's his principle that dictates that nobody should be able to vote in their own self interests, which means an end to the military vote.

personally i think the idea is ludicrous, what do you think?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof").

The Fed Gvmt needs Soldiers, and the Soldiers need pay and benefits comparable to the civilian world, therefore it is necessary and proper for the feds to offer contract benefits like the GI bill to obtain the Soldiers that it needs for its Article IV obligations.

You Progressives have done a remarkable job progressing us back to the 14th Century.

Amazing how you cant even hold true to your own principle

Why is there no vote down feature on USMB? Mother fucker doesn't even respond to the content of my post.

Your content was you weaseling out of uniformly applying your own principle.

Since politicians decide the size, scope, use, and compensation of the military by your standard they couldn't be allowed to vote.

so are you a weasel or do you stand by your principle and accept thatit would deny the military the vote

Why do you immoral Leftists so despise the military that you think they are leeches ergo the stadard applies to them as well as real leeches such as yourself?

take it up with The2ndAmendment, it's his principle that dictates that nobody should be able to vote in their own self interests, which means an end to the military vote.

personally i think the idea is ludicrous, what do you think?

I think you're illiterate.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

By your 'logic', gun owners should not be allowed to vote.

Gun owners don't need to lobby (or shouldn't need) to lobby and vote for their existence, the Constitution demands, as "necessary" in the Second Amendment.

k bye troll

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why doesn't Skylar want to defend his claim that no state has treason laws?

 

[Skylar]

Why doesn't Skylar want to defend his claim that no state has treason laws?

Because I'd much rather discuss the weaknesses in your OP. Namely the ludicrious reasoning that no one can vote in their own self interest.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss your assumptions that they aren't working out so well for you?

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not - the size and scope of it is not. Benefits like the gi bill are not set in stone. Pay can be adjusted, wars fought or peace sought.

Congress has that authority per the Constitution. That is where the true meaning of "Necessary and Proper" comes into play. Any laws that are Necessary and Proper to uphold the Federal Government's Article IV obligation within the bounds of the Constitution ("pursuance thereof")

Necessary according to who? The true meaning according to who? Your argument requires that we accept you as defining both. And you play no direct role in interpreting the constitution or defining any legal term.

You're simply offering us a series of nested assumptions. I reject them as they are ludicrous. Of course people have the authority to vote in thier own self interest. No law, court or ruling has ever found otherwise. And the practical effects of your assumptions is that no one would be allowed to vote. As virtually every vote involves self interest.

Without our acceptance of your every assumption and made up legal definition you have no argument. And no one here or in our law accepts either.

That's the problem with coming to us with nothing but subjective belief: you require our consent. Meaning you start the debate with your hat in hand, begging us to agree with you.

Um, no.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Necessary according to who? The true meaning according to who? Your argument requires that we accept you as defining both. And you play no direct role in interpreting the constitution or defining any legal term.

One does not need to interpret the word "necessary" to determine it means "necessary." Nor does one need to interpret the word "shall" to determine it means "shall."

Also, why are you dodging your comment that "No states have laws against treason" when 43 States in fact do?

2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article IV, Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

Article I, Section 8:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Of the foregoing powers respective to Article IV, Section 4 obligations:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

The military needs not to lobby for its existence, it is allowed by express virtue of the Constitution.

None of you Progressives can say the same about any part of your agenda.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There's no such thing as 'Treason against the State'. Nor any such laws.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Are you ready to stand behind this statement, when there are 43 States with their own laws defining treason?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Doesn't matter if the military is constitutionally mandated or not

Yes, I'm well aware that Progressives like you care not for what the Constitution says.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Don't run bitch Skylar

 

[Skylar]

Necessary according to who? The true meaning according to who? Your argument requires that we accept you as defining both. And you play no direct role in interpreting the constitution or defining any legal term.

One does not need to interpret the word "necessary" to determine it means "necessary." Nor does one need to interpret the word "shall" to determine it means "shall."

As all the interpretations of 'necessary' demonstrate, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. These issues have been debated for centuries. With the authoritative rulings from the legislatures and the judiciary.

Not you, citing yourself.

Also, why are you dodging your comment that "No states have laws against treason" when 43 States in fact do?

Explain how a state having 'treason laws' is in any way relevant to your claim that a person can never vote in their own self interest?