States Rights

[Quantum Windbag]

Just in case you need them here are the enumerated powers of congress

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 borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

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;

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

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

And these are all very board powers.

Unless of course..you can find some exceptions to each and every one of them?

See my previous post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See thats the problem I have read the whole thing and no where does the fed govt have the right to regulate trade and industry within a states borders. Those powers are not broad they are very specific in what the feds can do.

Show me where the federal govt has the authority to create and empower the EPA. Where does the supreme court have the right to rule on state laws that dont involve people from 2 states?

Find a clause..or even word where it specifies that.

I've posted both that specifically say your statement is completely and utterly incorrect.

Try this one, interstate. That is a single word that proves you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This country was created by "Liberals" or what you call "The Left" of the day.

The right..wanted to remain colonies...and loyal to the King.

Now they just want a new King.

If liberals wrote the constitution then why do they today seem so bent on trashing it?

They aren't.

It's conservatives that don't know the Constitution.

Here's a good example.

Check out Rush around 8:23.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0RHwLgH7LE"]YouTube - ‪Rush Limbaugh CPAC 2009 part 1 of 11‬‏[/ame]

He recites the Declaration of Indepence as the Preamble to the Constitution.

That was stupid. We all know no one on the left, especially a constitutional scholar, would ever do anything like that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uVZHZmkb58&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Constitution‬‏[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I accept Supreme Court rulings on this and other issues as the law of the land.

Yet you have never dealt with the proof I have given you that those rulings can be wrong.

Those who wish to address the issue will need to either manage to have some 74 years of Constitutional case law overturned or convene a Constitutional convention; it can’t be addressed by amendment alone.

Or they can keep challenging the laws and the court decisions until the court acknowledges its mistake and reverses its previous ruling, as it has many times in the past.

The issue is not the Constitution proper but how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in the context of the rule of law.

Wrong. The issue is the constitution and its proper interpretation.

After dealing with individuals such as you for many years now I’ve come to the conclusion that your position is that you reject all Supreme Court case law, starting with and including Marbury v Madison (1803).

Do you support Plessy v Ferguson? Dred Scott v Sanford?

After dealing with idiots like you that want to pretend they understand something they have absolutely zero real knowledge of I have come to the conclusion that your position is based on hot air.

If that is indeed the case then further debate is pointless – as we can not agree on the basic ‘ground rules,’ as it were. I would at least recommend you familiarize yourself with the case law you reject, however.

The ground rules are pretty simple. The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. Your problem is that you are unable to actually do anything beyond repeat talking points about things you have no real comprehension of. I predict that you will continue to appeal to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution because you think that Marbury v Madison settled that somehow.

It did not settle any such thing, and never even tried to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That may be a federal regulation, but it's not authorized by the Constitution.

You realize this like much of your post makes no sense, yes? Otherwise you’ll need to cite the Supreme Court case striking down such a regulation as un-Constitutional.

No he doesn't. There is no Supreme Court decision striking down possession of body armor by convicted felons, yet that was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit when the government admitted it over stepped current case law.

 

[The T]

If liberals wrote the constitution then why do they today seem so bent on trashing it?

They aren't.

It's conservatives that don't know the Constitution.

Here's a good example.

Check out Rush around 8:23.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0RHwLgH7LE"]YouTube - ‪Rush Limbaugh CPAC 2009 part 1 of 11‬‏[/ame]

He recites the Declaration of Indepence as the Preamble to the Constitution.

That was stupid. We all know no one on the left, especially a constitutional scholar, would ever do anything like that.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uVZHZmkb58&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪Constitution‬‏[/ame]

NOTE...how these cretins always point at Limbaugh...Glenn Beck, and others. Funny? None of them hold office...do they?

 

[tonystewart1]

You can not defend the current power hungery federal government by saying that the supreme court deemed it constitiutional. Thats like asking a drug addict if herion should be legal. There is no ambiguity in the constitiution on the powers of the supreme court and the justices sitll continue to rule like the constitiution does not apply to them. They have authority in very few instances. The founding fathers would be shocked at the power we have allowed them to have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can not defend the current power hungery federal government by saying that the supreme court deemed it constitiutional. Thats like asking a drug addict if herion should be legal. There is no ambiguity in the constitiution on the powers of the supreme court and the justices sitll continue to rule like the constitiution does not apply to them. They have authority in very few instances. The founding fathers would be shocked at the power we have allowed them to have.

Logical fallacy on your and your buds' parts.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution and its history, the role of the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, and much of American history.

But keep the entertainment up.

 

[The T]

You can not defend the current power hungery federal government by saying that the supreme court deemed it constitiutional. Thats like asking a drug addict if herion should be legal. There is no ambiguity in the constitiution on the powers of the supreme court and the justices sitll continue to rule like the constitiution does not apply to them. They have authority in very few instances. The founding fathers would be shocked at the power we have allowed them to have.

And the degree to which the politicians will go to to to hang on to their power, even thoughthe people are telling them NO.

 

[tonystewart1]

You can not defend the current power hungery federal government by saying that the supreme court deemed it constitiutional. Thats like asking a drug addict if herion should be legal. There is no ambiguity in the constitiution on the powers of the supreme court and the justices sitll continue to rule like the constitiution does not apply to them. They have authority in very few instances. The founding fathers would be shocked at the power we have allowed them to have.

Logical fallacy on your and your buds' parts.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution and its history, the role of the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, and much of American history.

But keep the entertainment up.

Is making a one sentence statement with no proof and nothing valuable to add the only thing that you got. If it is why even bother posting. I am not the smartest person in the world but can formulate an opinion and look for info to back it up. You don't seem to want to do that. So what is your contribution to this discussion. Getting your post count up?

 

[The T]

You can not defend the current power hungery federal government by saying that the supreme court deemed it constitiutional. Thats like asking a drug addict if herion should be legal. There is no ambiguity in the constitiution on the powers of the supreme court and the justices sitll continue to rule like the constitiution does not apply to them. They have authority in very few instances. The founding fathers would be shocked at the power we have allowed them to have.

Logical fallacy on your and your buds' parts.

You clearly do not understand the Constitution and its history, the role of the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment, and much of American history.

But keep the entertainment up.

Is making a one sentence statement with no proof and nothing valuable to add the only thing that you got. If it is why even bother posting. I am not the smartest person in the world but can formulate an opinion and look for info to back it up. You don't seem to want to do that. So what is your contribution to this discussion. Getting your post count up?

I see you've read Jokey-Fakey's playbook (which in all honesty he broadcasts with every post)...

 

[tonystewart1]

logical fallacy on your and your buds' parts.

You clearly do not understand the constitution and its history, the role of the supreme court, the 14th amendment, and much of american history.

But keep the entertainment up.

is making a one sentence statement with no proof and nothing valuable to add the only thing that you got. If it is why even bother posting. I am not the smartest person in the world but can formulate an opinion and look for info to back it up. You don't seem to want to do that. So what is your contribution to this discussion. Getting your post count up?

i see you've read jokey-fakey's playbook (which in all honesty he broadcasts with every post)...

10-4

 

[The T]

is making a one sentence statement with no proof and nothing valuable to add the only thing that you got. If it is why even bother posting. I am not the smartest person in the world but can formulate an opinion and look for info to back it up. You don't seem to want to do that. So what is your contribution to this discussion. Getting your post count up?

i see you've read jokey-fakey's playbook (which in all honesty he broadcasts with every post)...

10-4

He's better off left to his own devices unanswered lest he suck you into some conversation of what a better Conservative and person he is than you.

 

[tonystewart1]

i see you've read jokey-fakey's playbook (which in all honesty he broadcasts with every post)...

10-4

He's better off left to his own devices unanswered lest he suck you into some conversation of what a better Conservative and person he is than you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You and the T got nothing. Guys, you are entitled to your opinions, but you don't get it yet, as adults, that your beliefs are not facts, and that the facts, in fact, don't support your beliefs?