Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[Cuyo]

Hardly.

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
Have you read the Constitution?

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;

Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?

 

[Intense]

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
Have you read the Constitution?

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;

Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?

How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.

 

[jillian]

How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, Intense. But once again, there IS no 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE" as regards constitutionality. That i the point. And I don't understand why you keep saying that over and over. It simply doesn't exist. There is no super-majority. There is no CHOICE when it comes to people having their rights.

The POINT of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority... no matter how small that minority.

I know you're smarter than that... yet you keep saying it over and over. No matter how much you want it, it doesn't exist.

 

[Agit8r]

How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, Intense. But once again, there IS no 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE" as regards constitutionality. That i the point. And I don't understand why you keep saying that over and over. It simply doesn't exist. There is no super-majority. There is no CHOICE when it comes to people having their rights.

The POINT of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority... no matter how small that minority.

I know you're smarter than that... yet you keep saying it over and over. No matter how much you want it, it doesn't exist.

My guess is that Intense is referring to the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). Though I've never understood that to refer to any collective will, but merely leaving those things which are enumerated to neither state nor federal constitutions, to the self governance of the individual...

 

[Big Fitz]

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence

Oh boy! Multiple citations of the Good and Plenty clause!



Remind me again why we rebelled against a totalitarian central government?

 

[cutter]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

If following the Constitution will bite you in the ass then chew away. It's the way it ALWAYS should have been. Learn to follow the Constitution and you won't get bit.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.


We the people' to open next Congress
House to read Constitution

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.

The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.

'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times

 

[California Girl]

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.

There was also never really a movement like the TEA Party who ACTUALLY believes in the Constitution STILL, and are very likely to follow it as they were elected on that platform, and their political lives will depend on it.

So let's chill with the BS predictions shall we? You're also one to talk bout grandstanding.

 

[jillian]

there is no 'tea party'. there is only the same rightwingnuts who have always been the rabid rightwing of the 'base'. they just found a name for themselves.

 

[jillian]

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.

not you, too. i expect better from you.

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.

 

[rightwinger]

So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.


We the people' to open next Congress
House to read Constitution

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.

The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.

'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times

I am impressed!

I never knew the Conservatives to read anything past the second ammendment

 

[Trajan]

Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.

then why should you care? you can paint them red after they blow it, right?

 

[Trajan]

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.

I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?

hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

there is no 'tea party'. there is only the same rightwingnuts who have always been the rabid rightwing of the 'base'. they just found a name for themselves.

^^New stupidest post of the day^^

Don't you ever get enough of looking ridiculous?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.

I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?

hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.

Don't try common sense with her. In her fantasy world ANYONE who still believes in the Constitution is a "wingnut"

 

[jillian]

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.

I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?

hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.

it is not the role of the congress to decide what is constitutional or not. that is the role of the court. i went to law school because i loved studying court cases and the constitution does actually have meaning to me. but not this perverted version of what the constitution is that the pretend constitutionalists would turn it into. there have been more than 200 years of scholars debating, discussing, analyzing what the meaning and application of the constitution requires. the pretend constitutionalists make a mockery of it. i don't count myself among the scholars and experts even though i've practiced law since i was 23. but i know for sure that the pretend constitutionalists haven't a clue.

and the pomp and circumstance of 'reading the constitution' to appease the pretend constitutionalists is a lot of pointless noise and purely for show.

it turns my stomach, actually.

/rant over. (but you asked).

 

[rightwinger]

If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...


Why do they want to modify so much of it?

 

[jillian]

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.

I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?

hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.

Don't try common sense with her. In her fantasy world ANYONE who still believes in the Constitution is a "wingnut"

you haven't a clue what the constitution is, wingnut.

so quiet.