the constitution

[lawbuff]

and? your point? courts come down with different decisions. that's the nature of the constitution and it's construction. it's retarded to think there's one answer. if you change the composition of the court tomorrow, you'll have opposite decisions from the ones you have today.

btw, i should probably tell you that you can assume I know what you're talking about. I've been making my living at the practice of law for quite a while.

thanks.

I know you are a lawyer, I was told that.

My point was, I just asked you a question on what court you agreed with, that's all!

 

[Vast LWC]

Social Security, Medicare, the proposed Health take over,

How is any of this unconstitutional, and how would it even apply to the "Commerce Clause"? You might want to review Article I, Paragraph 8. Specifically where it states the federal government shall "Provide for the General Welfare of the United States".

the bailouts, the list is endless. The Commerce clause does not cover half the shit the Government claims it does.

The bailouts? Perhaps that was unconstitutional, though I'd like to see someone prove it.

 

[Vast LWC]

I say we do away with all government programs and the Government itself and let the military defend us and call it a a day. Tax money goes to the military to pay off our debt and to pay our men and women to defend us.

For once let the people take care of the people.

Just think how fast our debt goes away and never returns.

NO GOVERNMENT, NO DEBT!

No police, no highways, no fire fighters, no schools, no railroads, old people starving in the streets.

The country would collapse into a police state inside of 2 months.

And the debt would still be there, earning interest.

Sounds pretty fucking awful to me.

 

[rightwinger]

the point i was making about entitlement programs is when they take from me and give to the collective with out my consent, i believe they call that stealing. entitlement programs are only used as a marketing tool for inpressionable people to believe the government can handle your property better than you can. people are willing to give up their liberty for the idea that it will be better because the government says it will. when did we become so crippled to trust someone whos track record is a failure when it comes to entitlement programs. they claim to be fore the little guy, well tell them to take their foot of his throat.

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

 

[Vast LWC]

The first two major assaults on the Constitution.

Here Hamilton Shreds the "Enumerated Powers" of the Federal Government by Trumping them with the misuse of the "Health and Welfare Clause".

And how exactly was he wrong?

Do you have some particular portion of the actual Constitution that contradicts this interpretation, or are you just making shit up?

 

[Intense]

Social Security, Medicare, the proposed Health take over,

How is any of this unconstitutional, and how would it even apply to the "Commerce Clause"? You might want to review Article I, Paragraph 8. Specifically where it states the federal government shall "Provide for the General Welfare of the United States".

the bailouts, the list is endless. The Commerce clause does not cover half the shit the Government claims it does.

The bailouts? Perhaps that was unconstitutional, though I'd like to see someone prove it.

I do believe that Obama had no Legal Right in cheating Bond Holders and Preferred Stock Holders, while rewarding the Union and Common Stock holders. That is playing Eminent domain over Tradable Property. Threatening those that opposed the Scheme was an abuse of Authority. We are officially under the Jurisdiction of The Chicago Mob.

 

[Vast LWC]

About as clear a violation as there ever has been.

Really? The state violated the constitutional rights of private citizens, and the federal government stepped in and defended those rights. How exactly is that a violation of the Constitution?

 

[jillian]

No police, no highways, no fire fighters, no schools, no railroads, old people starving in the streets.

The country would collapse into a police state inside of 2 months.

And the debt would still be there, earning interest.

Sounds pretty fucking awful to me.

apparently he wants to live in a hut in the middle of the woods, hugging his guns.

people like him are exactly the reason that people who hate government should never run government.

 

[Vast LWC]

I do believe that Obama had no Legal Right in cheating Bond Holders and Preferred Stock Holders, while rewarding the Union and Common Stock holders. That is playing Eminent domain over Tradable Property. Threatening those that opposed the Scheme was an abuse of Authority. We are officially under the Jurisdiction of The Chicago Mob.

The Corporation was going to COLLAPSE without federal assistance.

If that happened, NONE of the Stock Holders would have had anything at all. The Bond Holders and Preferred stock holders were the people responsible for managing the ruination of the company, and you want them to be rewarded?


Eminent Domain was certainly usable here as the collapse of the company would have clearly harmed the public.

 

[Vast LWC]

Though I must say Intense, though I disagree, at least this is a credible argument, unlike the folks who just say that people are "treading on the constitution" without anything to back it up.

 

[Intense]

I do believe that Obama had no Legal Right in cheating Bond Holders and Preferred Stock Holders, while rewarding the Union and Common Stock holders. That is playing Eminent domain over Tradable Property. Threatening those that opposed the Scheme was an abuse of Authority. We are officially under the Jurisdiction of The Chicago Mob.

The Corporation was going to COLLAPSE without federal assistance.

If that happened, NONE of the Stock Holders would have had anything at all. The Bond Holders and Preferred stock holders were the people responsible for managing the ruination of the company, and you want them to be rewarded?


Eminent Domain was certainly usable here as the collapse of the company would have clearly harmed the public.

There was still value. However it would have been dissolved there would have been winners and losers. When We Nationalize, The Republic loses. People were defrauded. The Union Reaped what it did not sow. We were lied to then. We are being lied to now. Bankruptcy is a part of the Capitalist system. It is a natural process. You advocate the Government arbitrarily picking winners and losers. We are all losing as a result. The corrupted entities are being shored up at our expense. You advocate corrupting what is left, to bail out the New Class. Nothing was saved as a result.

 

[Intense]

No police, no highways, no fire fighters, no schools, no railroads, old people starving in the streets.

The country would collapse into a police state inside of 2 months.

And the debt would still be there, earning interest.

Sounds pretty fucking awful to me.

apparently he wants to live in a hut in the middle of the woods, hugging his guns.

people like him are exactly the reason that people who hate government should never run government.

The alternative "We The Living" or "Anthem"?

I'll take the cabin.

 

[Intense]

I do believe that Obama had no Legal Right in cheating Bond Holders and Preferred Stock Holders, while rewarding the Union and Common Stock holders. That is playing Eminent domain over Tradable Property. Threatening those that opposed the Scheme was an abuse of Authority. We are officially under the Jurisdiction of The Chicago Mob.

The Corporation was going to COLLAPSE without federal assistance.

If that happened, NONE of the Stock Holders would have had anything at all. The Bond Holders and Preferred stock holders were the people responsible for managing the ruination of the company, and you want them to be rewarded?


Eminent Domain was certainly usable here as the collapse of the company would have clearly harmed the public.

What part of Government Mandate or Unreasonable Union Bullshit demands don't you get?
Your account of what went wrong is flawed. You have cause to go after them use the "Rule of Law". What crimes were committed?

 

[jillian]

and? your point? courts come down with different decisions. that's the nature of the constitution and it's construction. it's retarded to think there's one answer. if you change the composition of the court tomorrow, you'll have opposite decisions from the ones you have today.

btw, i should probably tell you that you can assume I know what you're talking about. I've been making my living at the practice of law for quite a while.

thanks.

I know you are a lawyer, I was told that.

My point was, I just asked you a question on what court you agreed with, that's all!

then don't respond to me like you're lecturing. thanks.

as for which court? you know the answers...

my point, which you didn't respond to, is that it is the nature of our common law system that decisions vary. Me? i'd like people like Thomas and Scalia to never get anywhere near our judicial system. But they are... that's life. Luckily the next court will come around and fine tune some of their more onerous decisions.

the alternative is that we are left with Plessy v Ferguson forever...

you can take that up with the founding fathers who imported their british common law system here. but we're not a code state and the people who think the constitution should be treated the way fundies treat their bible simply don't understand that common law system.

 

[Intense]

Considering all of the bogey men Government has to fabricate to extend It's authority, you would think that rational minds would eventually recognize the path of Nationalization and remember what it has brought mankind in the past.They buried every mistake they made.... Literally.

 

[saveliberty]

Coporate bailouts? I have been looking at the posts and I am having trouble determining which company you are referring to. Lehman Brothers were not bailed out at all. No major consequences from that. GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler. Could it be members of Congress simply didn't want to see their banker golf buddies lose their jobs?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

I have no idea what you are talking about. YOu are trying to prove what point?

 

[KMAN]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

Because they know there are too many dumb Americans out there that have no idea what the constitution is... I would say that if we vote these people out we can change this but the same dumb Americans vote for people according to race, religion, whether they are a good speaker, etc... instead of what these people stand for politically.... and what do you know... the government educates 90% of these people...

So in summary, the Government educates the people who learn nothing about the constitution and these people vote for these people in Government.... Pretty good system huh....

 

[Intense]

and? your point? courts come down with different decisions. that's the nature of the constitution and it's construction. it's retarded to think there's one answer. if you change the composition of the court tomorrow, you'll have opposite decisions from the ones you have today.

btw, i should probably tell you that you can assume I know what you're talking about. I've been making my living at the practice of law for quite a while.

thanks.

I know you are a lawyer, I was told that.

My point was, I just asked you a question on what court you agreed with, that's all!

then don't respond to me like you're lecturing. thanks.

as for which court? you know the answers...

my point, which you didn't respond to, is that it is the nature of our common law system that decisions vary. Me? i'd like people like Thomas and Scalia to never get anywhere near our judicial system. But they are... that's life. Luckily the next court will come around and fine tune some of their more onerous decisions.

the alternative is that we are left with Plessy v Ferguson forever...

you can take that up with the founding fathers who imported their british common law system here. but we're not a code state and the people who think the constitution should be treated the way fundies treat their bible simply don't understand that common law system.

Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism, or a Relative response to relative circumstance using Absolute Justification? When one makes a choice tailored to the specific circumstance that is rational and just, based on weighted importance and relevance why does it so much end up in a 5/4 split? Surely not everything is getting worked out. Things are missed entirely, things are misapplied. What kind of an example is that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Coporate bailouts? I have been looking at the posts and I am having trouble determining which company you are referring to. Lehman Brothers were not bailed out at all. No major consequences from that. GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler. Could it be members of Congress simply didn't want to see their banker golf buddies lose their jobs?

GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler.???

Do you belive CBS is a credible source?

CBS) Chrysler's sad tale that led to this week's bankruptcy hearing in New York is not only an important business and political story. It also encompasses morality, the rule of law and strong-arm tactics used by some politicians.

Our story begins with the slow downfall of Chrysler, which succumbed to bankruptcy after experiencing a steep sales decline of 48 percent in one year. During its slide, Chrysler borrowed money from lenders and in return signed a contract promising that as so-called senior creditors, they'd get paid before anyone else if the company went under.

These creditors, by the way, represent something of a cross-section of America: the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods' retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers' credit unions, and so on.

A normal bankruptcy filing would be straightforward. Senior creditors get paid 100 cents on the dollar. Everyone else gets in line.

But President Obama and his allies don't want that to happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to head to bankruptcy court.

Last week Mr. Obama lambasted them as "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."

It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.

If those politicians thought about this a bit more, they'd probably realize their mistake. Creditors didn't force Chrysler's management to head to the capital markets and beg for funds: It was poor management, uncompetitive wages, and a union that opposed pay cuts.