the constitution circa 1924

[Mad Scientist]

They bailed out GM-they did not take control of it. Same with the banks. Bailing out =/= taking control. Explain to me how they took control of those organizations (and add proof)-and you gotta point.

GM Files Chapter 11, Government Takes Control of Nearly Three-Quarters of Company - ABC News

Uncle Sam (US Government) will be behind the wheel of the new GM, with the government taking control of nearly three-quarters of the company. Though the UAW and GM's bondholders will hold the rest of the pie, many consider the move is a risky investment for taxpayers. The Obama administration hopes to recoup most of its $50 billion investment in GM in five years. Earlier this month, President Obama expressed confidence that GM's reorganization would be successful.

You understand that? Government taking control means "Government taking control". If you still don't understand, print that article out and have someone read it to you aloud.

The Gubamint isn't getting it's money back from GM either. Didn't the Communists (Democrats) say the tax payer would "make money"? Yes they did, in fact that was one of the main reasons to provide a bailout when they should have just filed bankruptcy. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company goes out of business you know:
Panel: GM stock sale may trim taxpayer recovery - Yahoo! News

By selling a block of its shares in General Motors Co. for $33 each — a price far below the "break-even" point — the government sharply reduced the chances of taxpayers fully recovering their $50 billion investment in the auto giant, a new report from a congressional watchdog says.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

They bailed out GM-they did not take control of it. Same with the banks. Bailing out =/= taking control. Explain to me how they took control of those organizations (and add proof)-and you gotta point.

GM Files Chapter 11, Government Takes Control of Nearly Three-Quarters of Company - ABC News

Uncle Sam (US Government) will be behind the wheel of the new GM, with the government taking control of nearly three-quarters of the company. Though the UAW and GM's bondholders will hold the rest of the pie, many consider the move is a risky investment for taxpayers. The Obama administration hopes to recoup most of its $50 billion investment in GM in five years. Earlier this month, President Obama expressed confidence that GM's reorganization would be successful.

You understand that? Government taking control means "Government taking control". If you still don't understand, print that article out and have someone read it to you aloud.

The Gubamint isn't getting it's money back from GM either. Didn't the Communists (Democrats) say the tax payer would "make money"? Yes they did, in fact that was one of the main reasons to provide a bailout when they should have just filed bankruptcy. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company goes out of business you know:
Panel: GM stock sale may trim taxpayer recovery - Yahoo! News

By selling a block of its shares in General Motors Co. for $33 each — a price far below the "break-even" point — the government sharply reduced the chances of taxpayers fully recovering their $50 billion investment in the auto giant, a new report from a congressional watchdog says.

Actually the government has already received about $8.1billion back from GM. A simple google search will tell you that:

GM Pays Back Government Loans Early - FoxNews.com

(and that's from a conservative news source).

Also I'd like to point out that the government owns 61% of GM, which is a majority, but by GM opening up stock to the public-this is an indication that the government isn't running GM. Show me where the government is actively running GM.

 

[RDD_1210]

Bullshit. It will drive private insurers out of business so that the only alternative is Government ObamaCare.

LOL, explain to me how giving insurance companies more customers will drive them out of business? This should be good.

 

[Intense]

Read it and weep all you alleged strict constitutionalists:

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states. The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.

As justification for its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. This provision, contained in Section One of the amendment, prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Specifically, in its decision the Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666). The Court would go on to use this logic of incorporation much more purposefully in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this process as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So between 1833 and 1925 the bill of rights could be suspended in the various states by state law.

Is that the conservative past you want to return to? Is that the strict constitutionalism you long for?

Before 1925, The State Powers were more limited under the State Constitutions, under the Supreme Law of the Federal Constitution. Under the Federal Constitution, the Federal Government was both limited and Empowered within It's jurisdiction. Within It's Jurisdiction, The States fall under It's Authority. Through Federalism, advancements and improvements are proven and realized, generally originating at the lower State levels, where they are tried and improved upon before being brought to consideration. That is a part of the American Federal Process, through legislative channels. Had we imposed from the beginning what you, are so excited about, we would not have gotten Ratification. We recognize that Human Right's, Civil Right's remain regardless of what State border we cross, yet there are still exceptions. Think on that. Think on what American Federalism means to you. We should be advancing what we know is proven, by consent, not Court Mandate. We are not an Oligarchy where a majority of 5 Dictate the Law of the Land against the will of the Governed. The Role of the Court is to establish and defend Justice, that is True enough. Where it lacks authority to enforce, it should make plain the flaw, and possible remedy, and submit it to the Legislature, with temporary stay to protect from harm until resolved. How does that bite you in the ass???