No government required

[grainbely]

Again. Idk wtf you are talking about with your illegal statement.

If it’s not constitutional it is illegal. The fact that you need that explained to you is just sad.

I didn't mention anything unconstitutional. Developing policy isn't inherently unconstitutional yah dolt. Are you here in this conversation?

You seem like a fear monger. Current levels of government regulation according to you are creating Hitler's and Stalin's. Yeah you're right, acceptable arsenic levels being adjusted down is going to kill sooo many people! Proper coal ash handling ... don't even get me started on the millions that would kill. And emissions standards? Armageddon. This has been really funny. Are you the type who always invokes Hitler in your slippery slope pleas?

 

[P@triot]

Developing policy isn't inherently unconstitutional yah dolt. Are you here in this conversation?

Developing unconstitutional policy is unconstitutional...

 

[grainbely]

Developing policy isn't inherently unconstitutional yah dolt. Are you here in this conversation?

Developing unconstitutional policy is unconstitutional...

Go back and read the post you quoted. Tell me what unconstitutional policy you are referring to.

 

[P@triot]

Developing policy isn't inherently unconstitutional yah dolt. Are you here in this conversation?

Developing unconstitutional policy is unconstitutional...

Go back and read the post you quoted. Tell me what unconstitutional policy you are referring to.

Post #115 genius...

...then iteratively merge it with elements of policy we know work with the real world until there is a workable solution

It doesn’t work that way. The U.S. Constitution presents the framework with which the federal government must operate within. You don’t get “merge” whatever you want until there is a “workable solution”.

 

[grainbely]

Developing policy isn't inherently unconstitutional yah dolt. Are you here in this conversation?

Developing unconstitutional policy is unconstitutional...

Go back and read the post you quoted. Tell me what unconstitutional policy you are referring to.

Post #115 genius...

...then iteratively merge it with elements of policy we know work with the real world until there is a workable solution

It doesn’t work that way. The U.S. Constitution presents the framework with which the federal government must operate within. You don’t get “merge” whatever you want until there is a “workable solution”.

There is no implication of unconstitutional behavior. Period. You're making stuff up. And if you think policy just magically appears out of thin air, you're wrong again. There is a development process. For this tax bill there were probably many brainstorming sessions reconciling the wants and needs with what's realistically possible both in getting the legislation passed and in its real world mechanisms. There are different approaches to developing a refined and well thought finished product. Iteration is a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result. Merging is to combine, blend, or unite gradually into something else so as to become indistinguishable. The desired end result is a solution that meets the criteria of passage(It's legal and has enough support), adequately embodies the fundamentals of your ideologies, and delivers on the functional goal via implemented mechanisms. This could be applied to pretty much any issue that needs reform but it would take a significant involved effort.

 

[P@triot]

No government required. This is what happens when the failed left-wing ideology gets out of the way. People are allowed to prosper - and in turn - they are extremely generous to those in need.

32,000 sq. ft. mansion. 100 acres of land. $9.75 million. All without the barrel of a gun held by government. Imagine that.

Star pitcher gives away $9.75 million mansion, land to Christian camp for kids with special needs

 

[P@triot]

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.

"Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.

 

[OnePercenter]

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.

"Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.

There is no cry to ban ALL firearms. Nobody wants to ban handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

 

[P@triot]

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.

"Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.

There is no cry to ban ALL firearms. Nobody wants to ban handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

That is a bold-faced lie. Hell, one of those idiot students at Parkland (being horribly exploited by the Dumbocrats) steppes up to the mic and declared “I want this to be the end of the 2nd Amendment”.

For the love of God, there are idiot left-wingers all over USMB screaming “ban all guns”.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.

"Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.

There is no cry to ban ALL firearms. Nobody wants to ban handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

That is a bold-faced lie. Hell, one of those idiot students at Parkland (being horribly exploited by the Dumbocrats) steppes up to the mic and declared “I want this to be the end of the 2nd Amendment”.

For the love of God, there are idiot left-wingers all over USMB screaming “ban all guns”.

There are also idiots all over Thao Biard that want to throw gays in jail and make America an all white nation. So what? Why give the wingnuts the attention?

 

[P@triot]

There are also idiots all over Thao Biard that want to throw gays in jail and make America an all white nation. So what? Why give the wingnuts the attention?

Because the left actually listens to their wing-nuts. Conservatives completely ignore KKK idiots. But the left overwhelmingly wants to ban firearms. And damn near 100% want to drastically restrict them.

 

[hazlnut]

The left hates this undeniable reality - but here is yet another example that the government is not needed for anything outside of the 18 specific enumerated powers the states delegate to them.

In July, Microsoft announced a “Rural Airband Initiative” to invest in partnerships with telecommunications companies to bring broadband connectivity to 2 million more people in rural America by 2022.

Business will always build the infrastructure necessary (and more efficiently and at a lower cost) because it will ultimately end in more sales or lower cost for them.

Microsoft’s Plan to Expand Broadband Would Benefit Rural Americans

Another Tribalist thread. Us vs them.

Black and white.

Just an observation, the conservatives on USMB seem to be more inclined toward Tribalism. A very limited view of the world in which you must give up your own freedom to disagree or question your own side while simultaneously blinding yourself to possible virtues of the other side. You chain yourself and cut out your own eyes and tongue, figuratively speaking. A slave cog in the tribes machine.

Whereas left-leaning folks and centrists seem able to be critical of specific politicians, policies, or decisions, and not make endless straw men and overgeneralized attacks on the "other".

They seem to be more inclined toward a UNITED States of America.

There was a Dem pundit on TV today saying she wasn't going to give Jeff Sessions any credit for going to dinner with his Deputies and standing up to Trump because he was still Jeff Sessions. That's a very stupid thing to say. Admitting error, fault, and asking forgiveness is a most noble of human acts.

 

[Slade3200]

There are also idiots all over Thao Biard that want to throw gays in jail and make America an all white nation. So what? Why give the wingnuts the attention?

Because the left actually listens to their wing-nuts. Conservatives completely ignore KKK idiots. But the left overwhelmingly wants to ban firearms. And damn near 100% want to drastically restrict them.

I live in california and am pretty liberal. Own about 12 guns. Have a bunch of friends who are similar politically who are avid hunters. I don’t think we are an anomaly

 

[P@triot]

I live in california and am pretty liberal. Own about 12 guns. Have a bunch of friends who are similar politically who are avid hunters. I don’t think we are an anomaly

Well...I hate to be the one to deliver the bad news...but you are. Glad to hear that there are still some on the left that own firearms though! That gives me hope.

 

[Slade3200]

I live in california and am pretty liberal. Own about 12 guns. Have a bunch of friends who are similar politically who are avid hunters. I don’t think we are an anomaly

Well...I hate to be the one to deliver the bad news...but you are. Glad to hear that there are still some on the left that own firearms though! That gives me hope.

To be honest though, I don’t really give a shit if they ban bump stocks or tighten background checks or beef up databases or even make a registration. I’m tired of the Trumped up debate, pardon the pun. Law abiding citizens should be able to get guns. Dangerous people shouldn’t. Let’s find a compromise and just end the crisis talk

 

[jillian]

18 powers?
I can count 3:

1. mucking up the judicial branch
2. mucking up the legislative branch
3. mucking up the executive branch

Multiplied by 3 more levels of
1. local
2. state
3. federal

so that makes 9.

I guess if you multiply those 9 times 2,
for both major parties skewing and screwing up govt
by inserting their agenda, then you get 18!

Am I close?

general welfare.... gives broad latitude

commerce clause... gives broad latitude

the only ones mucking up the judicial branch are theocrats.

 

[emilynghiem]

18 powers?
I can count 3:

1. mucking up the judicial branch
2. mucking up the legislative branch
3. mucking up the executive branch

Multiplied by 3 more levels of
1. local
2. state
3. federal

so that makes 9.

I guess if you multiply those 9 times 2,
for both major parties skewing and screwing up govt
by inserting their agenda, then you get 18!

Am I close?

general welfare.... gives broad latitude

commerce clause... gives broad latitude

the only ones mucking up the judicial branch are theocrats.

Dear jillian:
"general welfare" does not give federal govt specific authorities in specific areas.
That requires Constitutional amendment to authorize federal govt to create new jurisdictions.

Otherwise, this does not represent the consent of the people and states
to suddenly dictate from the federal level to create new mandates and micromanagement,
such as over health care, as is still argued as beyond Constitutional limits of govt.

Examples of how such interpretation of "general welfare" is unconstitutional
to "justify" Congress/Federal Govt mandating regulations on how people pay for health insurance

1. The Constitution ALSO guarantees IN WRITING in the Bill of Rights
against "depriving citizens of liberty without due process" to prove
THOSE PERSONS have committed a crime for which the law provides a prescribed penalty.

The ACA mandates already DEPRIVED citizens of liberty by requiring
an added TAX and only exempting those who BOUGHT govt regulated insurance.
Thus, freedom of choice was deprived and penalized by this law.

It did not require citizens to be PROVEN to have abused public resources
without paying BEFORE being punished and forced to buy insurance.
It required this IN ADVANCE and against the free choice of individuals
to pay for health care OTHER WAYS besides govt approved insurance.

So regarding "general welfare" it is clear and common sense
that Govt CANNOT "promote the general welfare" in ways
that VIOLATE KEY PROVISIONS elsewhere in the same Constitution.

2. If this change in federal govt jurisdiction were truly representing the
public and will of the people, then the agreement to interpret and give
govt this expanded power over health care could be PASSED by AMENDMENT.

Clearly, half the nation opposed this because of beliefs in free choice of
health care belonging to individuals and NOT to federal govt controls.

This requirement to pass a Constitutional Amendment through the States
CHECKS and ENSURES that federal govt changes REFLECT the
consent of the people, and prevents "taxation without representation"

So bypassing this step was an ABUSE of federal power to dictate
against the will, consent and BELIEFS of the people affected.

jillian this type of interpretation and application of laws may
have represented and rung true with YOUR beliefs, so maybe
you saw it as proper and not a violation of Constitutional govt.

But for the other half of the nation whose beliefs were violated
either this usurping and overreaching abuse of authority
violated:
Constitutional principles and process directly
or
Constitutional BELIEFS if we don't all agree it violated process and limits on govt

So even if we DON'T AGREE if it was Constitutional or unconstitutional,
as people like you may believe it is lawful under "general welfare"
the fact that Constitutionalists have rights to our BELIEFS
and not to have this violated or discriminated against by govt,
then THAT was a violation on the level of BELIEFS.

I agree that for overreaching abuse of judicial power, yes, this is too easy and common
because of the unequal ability of judges and courts to abuse that capacity
and, intentionally or not, establish laws that are supposed to depend on legislation.
The judiciary is supposed to determine what is in keeping with laws or not,
and only the legislature is supposed to create or revise laws.

In the case of ACA, the law was passed as a public health bill
not a tax bill or it would have been struck down in Congress.
But then it was interpreted and upheld in Court as a tax bill,
not under the commerce or welfare clause. So the ACA
was neither authorized by Amendment through the States
to give federal govt this new capacity to begin with, nor was
it both passed by Congress and Courts under the same interpretation.

One interpretation was voted on by Congress
and a different one was upheld by Court.

If health care reform were to go through the proper Constitutional
process of representing the taxpayers affected by the terms and policies,
it would come out quite differently. Given the conflicting beliefs in either
managing health care through govt or absolutely NOT putting social
programs in the hands of govt, then to protect Constitutional equal
free exercise of both approaches or beliefs, it makes sense to me
that the fairest way is to allow taxpayers a choice of which plans to fund.

When plans represent the consent of the governed taxpayers affected,
they would freely support, vote for, fund and participate.

This wouldn't have to be forced on people through federal govt.

In general jillian respecting the consent and free will/liberty of
the individual citizens is better for the "general welfare"

it is generally AGAINST the best interest of the public and integrity
of govt to abuse federal authority to FORCE laws mandates
or tax penalties on people by overriding their objections.

If you are going to pass laws, they should not punish or deprive
law abiding citizens, but specify the WRONGS for which the
penalties apply. In the case of ACA, all citizens were deprived
of liberty and freedom to choose without first proving which
people committed abuses that cost public resources or taxpayers.

 

[P@triot]

Once again the progressive false narrative completely blown out of the water. The left likes to pretend that infrastructure would not and could not exist without government. But yet again we see the most sophisticated infrastructure implemented by private industry at no cost to the tax payer.

Facebook, Microsoft Construct 4,100-Mile Transatlantic Underwater Cable

 

[P@triot]

And all without government interference.

New York University announced it plans to award free tuition to all its medical students — current and future.

The medical school at NYU, a private university, is ranked third in the U.S., and tied with Stanford University in Stanford, California, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Whenever we abuse by the U.S. Constitution (leaving private issues to the private sector and constitutional issues to the government), we thrive as a nation. Which is why left-wing idiocy always ends in failure.

NYU School of Medicine set to give free tuition to all current and future medical students

 

[Kosh]

The left hates this undeniable reality - but here is yet another example that the government is not needed for anything outside of the 18 specific enumerated powers the states delegate to them.

In July, Microsoft announced a “Rural Airband Initiative” to invest in partnerships with telecommunications companies to bring broadband connectivity to 2 million more people in rural America by 2022.

Business will always build the infrastructure necessary (and more efficiently and at a lower cost) because it will ultimately end in more sales or lower cost for them.

Microsoft’s Plan to Expand Broadband Would Benefit Rural Americans

I remember the trial in the 90's that Microsoft was trying to push out competition in the internet as well as software.

The (R)'s wanted to break up Microsoft for being to big. The (D's) said NO!