"that's not in the constitution!

[BlindBoo]

Here's one. The Highway superfund. Where does the Constitution give the Feds the power to blackmail the states by withholding these funds until the state complies with the what the Feds want.

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

LOLz!


The best part is where you say the Oddball wants only what is listed in the constitution to exist then say Oddball does not like our country...

Well if the country we live in is defined by our constitution and you find yourself supporting many if not all programs that the constitution does not allow while at the same time condemning the constitution for its boundaries you might find it is YOU that does not like this country.


Fucking LOLOLOZ!~~

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I guess by that dipshit's argument, our military is only authorized to use muskets and bayonets and our Navy can only have wooden sailing ships.

 

[RDD_1210]

I guess by that dipshit's argument, our military is only authorized to use muskets and bayonets and our Navy can only have wooden sailing ships.

Does it say we can only use muskets and wooden ships in the constitution?

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

You have to understand Libertarians. They're guys who play Fantasy Politics, essentially, kind of like Rotisserie baseball, or fantasy football, whatever....

They have a pretend party, with a pretend platform, and pretend candidates that they pretend to enter in elections.

And then they have a beer.

You also have to understand liberals... They get near everything they want and next week they will claim the country is shit, falling apart and we need to give them more if we want to save it.

 

[Oddball]

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.

If that lame-assed, silly-assed argument held any water at all, why doesn't Article 1, Section 8 not just read:

"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;

The End"

?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

From Federalist #45:

James Madison is dead.

So are Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

Idjit.

How do you know James Madison would disagree today? Please provide proof, your opinions are worthless.

 

[Anachronism]

There's nothing there that says that a question or issue or act must be explicitly described in the constitution for the federal government to be able to do it. It's not necessary for the constitution to give explicit authorization to create a Department of Education, in order for the federal government to be allowed to do it. This is why all this BS from so many extremist conservatives is exactly that. All this stuff that is supposedly unconstitutional, yet is regularly held up by the courts as being constitutional. Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. We explain that away as judicial activism. It's all a grand conspiracy to destroy the constitution! Cue the Freemasons!

Actually that is EXACTLY what the 10th Amendment says.

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.

Which is why the Founders left us with the ability to AMEND the document.... so that when things like the USAF came along they could be added to the list of Constitutional expenditures. That doesn't mean that you can simply do it because you want to. It requires amending the document, just as a Dept. of Education, Energy, HUD, etc... does.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

If that lame-assed, silly-assed argument held any water at all, why doesn't Article 1, Section 8 not just read:

"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;

The End"

?

Why won't you answer my question?

 

[Avorysuds]

I can't find the words "supercarrier", "stealth bomber" or "attack drone" in the Constitution either. Hmmmmmmm

God, not that smelly old red herring again.


But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...

To raise and support Armies..

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

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;

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

I'm not pro nukes but what part covers making guns, knives or any weapons? That's right, you're a fucking moron so please stop.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

James Madison is dead.

So are Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

Idjit.

How do you know James Madison would disagree today? Please provide proof, your opinions are worthless.

Speaking of worthless and you chime right in.

How about another geography lesson for us numbnutz?

 

[RDD_1210]

God, not that smelly old red herring again.


But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

I'm not pro nukes but what part covers making guns, knives or any weapons? That's right, you're a fucking moron so please stop.

So what are you saying? The constitution doesn't need to explicitly state something to make it constitutional?

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

The fact that you don't get something as amazingly simplistic as defense being in the constitution is a bit troubling being you post on political boards....

No, I'm not defending all defenses but at least it is there were as food stamps and NPR funding can't even be covered by any area of the constitution.

 

[VaYank5150]

I guess by that dipshit's argument, our military is only authorized to use muskets and bayonets and our Navy can only have wooden sailing ships.

Are muskets spelled out implicitly in the CONUS?

 

[gekaap]

My point of view is irrelevant?

What you call over reaching is irrelevant to the question of whether they are acting legally. I think it's over reaching for the government to prohibit marijuana use. But my thoughts on the matter don't change the fact that it's a constitutional law.

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....

It is not necessary for every action to originate in Congress and be signed by the President. The Congress need only grant authorization to act. To use the EPA as an example, it was created by executive order to enforce environmental laws. One of those laws, passed by Congress, is the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations regarding greenhouse gases, among other things. This power has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, with the court actually going beyond the question of "power" and pointing out the fact that under federal law the EPA is required to develop and enforce such regulations.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I guess by that dipshit's argument, our military is only authorized to use muskets and bayonets and our Navy can only have wooden sailing ships.

Are muskets spelled out implicitly in the CONUS?

No more so than the use of trucks in the delivery of mail... stop being such an ass.

 

[Oddball]

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



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.

If that lame-assed, silly-assed argument held any water at all, why doesn't Article 1, Section 8 not just read:

"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;

The End"

?

Why won't you answer my question?

I did answer you....You just didn't comprehend it.

If the concept of enumerated powers is so off base, why go to the trouble of making a list of enumerated powers?

 

[Flopper]

To expect the government to operate as it did in 1776 is ridiculous. There was no need for Social Security or Medicare because life expectancy was only about 35. There was no need for health insurance because most healthcare was administered at home. There was no illegal immigration because our doors were open to everyone. There was little public education. The primary energy source was wood and there was plenty of that. There is no way the founders could have seen a need for most of the services performed by government today so you can't expect it to be explicitly called out in the Constitution.

The major difference was that in colonial times this country was more of a confederation for mutual defense and trade than a nation, something akin to the British Commonwealth.

 

[VaYank5150]

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?

The fact that you don't get something as amazingly simplistic as defense being in the constitution is a bit troubling being you post on political boards....

No, I'm not defending all defenses but at least it is there were as food stamps and NPR funding can't even be covered by any area of the constitution.

So, in your simplistic little brain, an attack drone is a DEFENSIVE weapon? How is a supercarrier a defensive weapon? They allow us to take our offensive attack aircraft further from our shores to offensively engage other targets. How is that defensive, exactly?

 

[Oddball]

To expect the government to operate as it did in 1776 is ridiculous. There was no need for Social Security or Medicare because life expectancy was only about 35. There was no need for health insurance because most healthcare was administered at home. There was no illegal immigration because our doors were open to everyone. There was little public education. The primary energy source was wood and there was plenty of that. There is no way the founders could have seen a need for most of the services performed by government today so you can't expect it to be explicitly called out in the Constitution.

The major difference was that in colonial times this country was more of a confederation for mutual defense and trade than a nation, something akin to the British Commonwealth.

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.