"that's not in the constitution!

[Oddball]

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?

Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.

See: Red herring.

 

[VaYank5150]

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?

Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.

Besides, aren't nuclear weapons OFFENSIVE in nature? I thought the CONUS provided for DEFENSE?

 

[RDD_1210]

A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?

Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.

See: Red herring.

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

 

[Oddball]

Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.

See: Red herring.

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

 

[VaYank5150]

See: Red herring.

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?

Our constitution set out for us to be ruled by a myriad of overreaching regulatory agencies with the power to pass laws willy nilly?

Who knew?

 

[gekaap]

I'm pretty sure the military is an enumerated power. Show me Earned Income Tax Credit.

I've explained this before, but I'll go again. The problem with this line of thinking is that it requires taking an ultra restrictive interpretation of the constitution. If we do adopt such a position, then the majority of military endeavors become unconstitutional. Since the constitution explicitly grants power to Congress to raise armies and navies, but makes no mention of an Air Force. Thus, an ultra restrictive interpretation of the constitution would require an amendment to make creating, maintaining, and funding the Air Force a legal action.

Such a stance would also have implications on Army and Naval actions that are not within the scope of a traditional role of either force. In other words, Naval fighter jets would be unconstitutional, because it's not included within the understood meaning of what it is a Navy at the time of the writing of the constitution. Furthermore, we would have to also call into question the government's ability to maintain an army for more than two years, since the constitution explicitly says that no appropriation of money to support an army can last longer than two years. We would also have to call into question the size and scope of such an army, including world wide military posts. Because the constitution makes clear that it presumed that calling forth the militia would be a primary means why which the government would lay down insurrections, enforce the laws of the Union, and repel invasions.

Obviously, nobody accepts the kinds of limitations that I've described above. We do not accept that the government must disband the army after two years, or that the current size of the Army is illegal, or that the Navy cannot have aircraft carriers or fighter jets, or that we cannot have an Air Force. And, of course, the courts do not take such a stance. Thus, in rejecting many of the necessary consequences of an ultra restrictive interpretation of the constitution, we must also reject that ultra restrictive interpretation.

 

[gekaap]

Our constitution set out for us to be ruled by a myriad of overreaching regulatory agencies with the power to pass laws willy nilly?

Who knew?

What you may call over reaching is irrelevant. They are operating within their constitutional powers, as departments of the executive branch of the government. Your claim that the executive branch passes "willy nilly" laws is simply an outright lie and you know it. Congress makes laws. The executive branch enforces those laws.

 

[RDD_1210]

See: Red herring.

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

Actually my "silly ass argument" is highlighting your blatant hypocrisy. You guys love to spout that if it's not in the constitution, then we shouldn't bother with it. However, you seem to be arguing that Nuclear weapons, the air force and other military expenditures that aren't specifically mentioned are acceptable because they are assumed as a part of the greater common defense language.

I actually agree with that, but that should also apply to other areas as well, such as ensuring the health of our citizens which would fall under "General welfare".

So either the constitution has to explicitly mention something or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Although, I'm sure you'll continue to try.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?

James Madison...y'know the principal author of the Constitution...disagrees.

From Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

James Madison is dead.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Our constitution set out for us to be ruled by a myriad of overreaching regulatory agencies with the power to pass laws willy nilly?

Who knew?

What you may call over reaching is irrelevant. They are operating within their constitutional powers, as departments of the executive branch of the government. Your claim that the executive branch passes "willy nilly" laws is simply an outright lie and you know it. Congress makes laws. The executive branch enforces those laws.

My point of view is irrelevant?

Quite the little Nazi huh?

Are you contending that every action taken by the EPA, USDoE, etc. originates as a law passed by congress and signed by the President? I.e., new greenhouse gas regulations....

 

[Oddball]

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

Actually my "silly as argument" is highlighting your blatant hypocrisy. You guys love to spout that if it's not in the constitution, then we shouldn't bother with it. However, you seem to be arguing that Nuclear weapons, the air force and other military expenditures that aren't specifically mentioned are acceptable because they are assumed as a part of the greater common defense language.

I actually agree with that, but that should also apply to other areas as well, such as ensuring the health of our citizens which would fall under "General welfare".

So either the constitution has to explicitly mention something or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Although, I'm sure you'll continue to try.

It's a completely silly-assed argument, which nuts like you still take seriously.

Madison also covered the general welfare clause in Federalist 41....Your "interpretation" of it runs exactly counter to its intent.

 

[Oddball]

Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?

James Madison...y'know the principal author of the Constitution...disagrees.

From Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

James Madison is dead.

So are Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

Idjit.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?

The "right to privacy" is not in the Constitution therefore we should remove our tax dollars that support abortion rights. Planned Parenthood can earn its profit like any other business.

Immie

 

[beowolfe]

Ooooo...He wants a list.

The Departments of Energy, Commerce, Labor, Education, a central bank, HHS, HUD, EPA, FHA, BLM, TVA, FDA, DEA, ATF, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, CPB/NPR/PBS/, EEOC, ONDCP, Ad Council, NRC....

Need more, or is that a good enough start for you?

Your list is in error.

 

[rikules]

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?

"It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional"


because cons are very quick to point out the unconstitutionality of anything they oppose
by stating "that is NOT in the constitution so it IS UNconstitutional"

like: separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution

 

[signelect]

Since when did the constitution have anything to do with what is going on, congress (both sides) routinely ignore it and the Supreme Court interpret it to mean what ever they want.

 

[Oddball]

or according to your rules, unconstitutional.

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?

"To provide and maintain a Navy;" isn't specific enough?

hoooooooboooie!

 

[RDD_1210]

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

Actually my "silly as argument" is highlighting your blatant hypocrisy. You guys love to spout that if it's not in the constitution, then we shouldn't bother with it. However, you seem to be arguing that Nuclear weapons, the air force and other military expenditures that aren't specifically mentioned are acceptable because they are assumed as a part of the greater common defense language.

I actually agree with that, but that should also apply to other areas as well, such as ensuring the health of our citizens which would fall under "General welfare".

So either the constitution has to explicitly mention something or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Although, I'm sure you'll continue to try.

It's a completely silly-assed argument, which nuts like you still take seriously.

Silly because you avoid addressing the hypocrisy? So which is it? The constitution has to explicitly state something is constitutional or it doesn't?

Madison also covered the general welfare clause in Federalist 41....Your "interpretation" of it runs exactly counter to its intent.

And Hamilton said otherwise as he maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. So your "interpretation" of it runs counter to his intent.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not even.

Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:

"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"

It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.

It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?

"It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional"


because cons are very quick to point out the unconstitutionality of anything they oppose
by stating "that is NOT in the constitution so it IS UNconstitutional"

like: separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution

This is so stupid it's almost beyond comprehension.