"that's not in the constitution!

[Oddball]

Honestly?

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

Honestly.

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

 

[RDD_1210]

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

A self-appointed wise man once said...

Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

 

[percysunshine]

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

Wasn't Don Rickles the opportunistic bankster in Kelly's Heroes?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL, like I said....this is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep old man.

What's that? No effective counter to my statemet?
Can't tell me hw I am wrong?
I thought not.

I could try

And you would fail - which is why you have not tried.

 

[jillian]

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

so it's not arrogant to pick and choose *between* founding fathers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this.
Thus, Amendment X applies.

There was an intent that the federal government be able to act in furtherance of the general welfare. That right is not constrained and the courts have construed it broadly.

Yes... Based on the writings of Hamilton.
Tell us again what you think of the musing of the foundng fathers, applied to law.

 

[Oddball]

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

so it's not arrogant to pick and choose *between* founding fathers.

I detest central banksters, no matter with whom they associate themselves.

Hamilton was the Alan Greenspan of his day and can kiss my ass.

 

[Oddball]

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

A self-appointed wise man once said...

Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

A central bank --one thing Hamilton wanted almost as badly as life itself-- wasn't in the Constitution either....Of course, I mentioned that fact in post #2.

You are now cordially invited to stuff it up your ass.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hamilton was an opportunistic bankster despot....There's one in every crowd.

Burr took care of his insolent ass.

A self-appointed wise man once said...

Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

A central bank --one thing Hamilton wanted almost as badly as life itself-- wasn't in the Constitution either....Of course, I mentioned that fact in post #2.

You are now cordially invited to stuff it up your ass.

Just because you disagree with hamilton doesn't make him any less important, so sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A self-appointed wise man once said...

Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

A central bank --one thing Hamilton wanted almost as badly as life itself-- wasn't in the Constitution either....Of course, I mentioned that fact in post #2.

You are now cordially invited to stuff it up your ass.

Just because you disagree with hamilton doesn't make him any less important, so sorry.

That you agree with him doesn't mean he is right.

 

[RDD_1210]

A central bank --one thing Hamilton wanted almost as badly as life itself-- wasn't in the Constitution either....Of course, I mentioned that fact in post #2.

You are now cordially invited to stuff it up your ass.

Just because you disagree with hamilton doesn't make him any less important, so sorry.

That you agree with him doesn't mean he is right.

You're right, it doesn't! That's the point. You can't cite one found father as the end-all-be-all when another founding father had a much different opinion. Founding fathers disagreed too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because you disagree with hamilton doesn't make him any less important, so sorry.

That you agree with him doesn't mean he is right.

You're right, it doesn't! That's the point. You can't cite one found father as the end-all-be-all when another founding father had a much different opinion. Founding fathers disagreed too.

Ah. Well then - so much for those "General Welfare" court cases that relied on Hamilton.

 

[RDD_1210]

That you agree with him doesn't mean he is right.

You're right, it doesn't! That's the point. You can't cite one found father as the end-all-be-all when another founding father had a much different opinion. Founding fathers disagreed too.

Ah. Well then - so much for those "General Welfare" court cases that relied on Hamilton.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're right, it doesn't! That's the point. You can't cite one found father as the end-all-be-all when another founding father had a much different opinion. Founding fathers disagreed too.

Ah. Well then - so much for those "General Welfare" court cases that relied on Hamilton.

It is not at all surprising that you are confused.
This is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ah. Well then - so much for those "General Welfare" court cases that relied on Hamilton.

It is not at all surprising that you are confused.
This is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep.

LOL, you make me smile.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not at all surprising that you are confused.
This is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep.

LOL, you make me smile.

You don't know that the 'general welfare' court decisions are all based on Hamilton's writings regarding the general welfare clause?
That the decisions all cite him as authority?
That the courts, w/o explaining why, simply chose Hamilton's point of view over Madison, et al?

These questions are all rhetorical, BTW.