The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[johnwk]

The Constitution really doesn't matter when the a-hole in charge ignores it and the Rule of Law on a regular basis...

And the above is in addition to Congress refusing to use its power of impeachment. The fact is, we have a federal government ___ all three branches ____ which is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and its legislative intent as found in the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

JWK







The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Hell you have prove me wrong. You're a first class PHONY who refuses to defend your assertions because they are without defense and now you're going to ground like a fucking coward!

BTW you piggybacked my post to another in post #10 and started this whole sting of posts, and you STILL haven't posted any substantive response to your errors in that post to say nothing of those along the way since then. You just duck and dodge changing the subject. When its gets too fucking hot for your liking you simply deflect and waltz away, you fucking coward! All hat and no cattle, Tex!

1. Congress, by their actions of not renewing the charters, proved both the First and Second National banks, were NOT necessary.

2. Both banks were private corporations, States have every right to tax such corporations.

3. The Federal Government held double the equity in GM as they did either National Bank, would you also say States had no right to tax their cars?

Pull your head out of your ass and take a peek at reality for a change. The supreme court justices are not gods, they do make mistakes. Now I'm done with you.

And yet you STILL haven't posted any substantive response to your errors or your erroneous assertions, but simply add more.

WTF does the auto bailout and GM have to do McCulloch v. Maryland, SCOTUS and Judicial Review you ignorant putz? It's only a deflection, a smokescreen to avoid responding to the topic and displaying your ignorance. All hat and no cattle, Tex!

Considering I made no errors or erroneous assertions there is no response necessary. Congress proved, by not renewing the charters of the first or second national banks, neither were necessary or proper to carry out the forgoing powers of the Constitution. The Marshall court got it wrong as they did in many cases. Also the government holding a minority equity stake in a private company does not make it a federal entity. I simply pointed out that the government held twice the equity in GM as they did either national bank, didn't make GM a federal entity, making it exempt from State taxation. BTW your continued assertions about my hat makes you look like the simple fool you are, I don't wear hats or caps. Now go away child, you're a broken record of wrongness.

Considering your errors were manifest to the point of stupidity you obviously didn't and don't want to respond to the points I made. You ran like a little girl from the boogie man every time you were challenged to prove your assertions by citing the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution or some other specific point to support your baseless claim. Hell, you even boasted that you were far better versed in Constitutional understanding than I, but when challenged you demurred, changed the narrative and ran like a frightened child.

Your first post to my post #9 responding to another that you piggybacked was at #10:

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

You being the self-professed expert of the Constitution should have KNOWN that Amendment X states;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now where do you see in that amendment ANYTHING that says there are no implied powers at the Federal level. You were wrong from the get-go. You keep claiming the Court got things wrong. When challenged, you dance and dodge even though you boast a superior knowledge of things Constitutional, while never responding to how the Court erred with anything other than simplistic generalities or a deflection. Here is my post #15:

Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

And you being the great Constitutional scholar responded with:

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

As a matter of fact, Marbury v. Madison had never been mentioned in the thread up to that point, but McCulloch v. Maryland had and in my post #9 to which you had responded just 45 minutes or so before you posted the bullshit above. That is an example of how you dance, dodge, deflect and run to ground. Now if you were the Constitutional expert you've claimed to be, OR you were/are the ignorant blowhard I believe you are regarding the Constitution, in either case, you would have done the same thing for different reasons. IF you were knowledgeable of the Constitution and the case, you would have recognized the flaws from the items I cited and would be forced to admit error! But IF you weren't informed Constitutionally and didn't know how to connect those dots you would be forced to admit two errors; factual errors and your Constitutional knowledge errors. You chose a third option when informed in my post that it was not Marbury but McCulloch. Here is how you responded in your post #38:

Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.

You never responded to the point, but rather deflected to something else changing the entire course of the discussion. You totally REFUSED to respond to this:

Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

But instead challenged me to respond to this bullshit dodge:

Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.

The above speaks for itself, and your responses are damning! Your claim through implication of your sainthood in conduct, thought and deed is fucking bullshit as shown above. Also, for your information since you brought it up, the phrase "all hat and no cattle" is an American idiom describing someone who lacks substance, talks big and/or is pretentious. Rather than using other idiomatic expressions like 'all foam, no beer' or 'all bark and no bite' or 'all sizzle and no steak' I settled on 'all hat and no cattle given your alter ego of OKTexas. That seemed very appropriate to me, because you're all hammer and no nail in that Texas way!

del·e·gate
VERB

1. entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself:
   "he delegates routine tasks" ·
   assign · entrust · pass on · hand on/over · turn over ·
   [more]
   • send or authorize (someone) to do something as a representative:
     "Edward was delegated to meet new arrivals"

So tell me hero, what were the senior entities that delegated powers to the feds? What entities are the feds representing?
For a hint to the answer of both questions, see Article V and take a peek what entities are able to change the Constitution at will, without ANY involvement of the feds. If you were to delegate a 10 year old to take out the trash, does that automatically imply they can use the car? They argue that it does because you gave them supremacy on how the powers, you delegated, are exercised. Would you buy that argument? I know you're going to say that is a ludicrous example, but it's not, that is the exact argument the feds and the courts are using to justify 99% of the bullshit they're doing that are NOT SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED. And you and others buy that augment and swear that it's valid. Hell I guess it might be in your alternate universe.

The Marshall court never said what delegated power the feds were using to justify a National Bank, they just said it was necessary to expedite the financial dealings of the government, how exactly am I to quote chapter and verse they erred on when they never said which ones they were using to justify their opinion. Like I said numerous times, congress themselves proved it was not necessary by not renewing the charters, not once but twice. Those actions proved the Marshall court got it wrong, the banks were indeed not necessary at all or congress would have thought nothing about renewing them. Again exactly how am I to argue chapter and verse that the court got wrong, when they used none to justify their opinion. All they said was the feds say they need to do it and the court rubber stamped it.

in what article and clause did the States delegate the power to incorporate private concerns within their jurisdictions, to the feds? Short answer, they didn't, the feds assumed that power and again the Marshall court rubber stamped it.

Why haven't you disputed a States right to tax private corporations within their jurisdictions? Another point the Marshall court got WRONG.

Now feel free to resume your childishness.

So tell me hero, what were the senior entities that delegated powers to the feds? What entities are the feds representing?
For a hint to the answer of both questions, see Article V and take a peek what entities are able to change the Constitution at will, without ANY involvement of the feds. If you were to delegate a 10 year old to take out the trash, does that automatically imply they can use the car? They argue that it does because you gave them supremacy on how the powers, you delegated, are exercised. Would you buy that argument? I know you're going to say that is a ludicrous example, but it's not, that is the exact argument the feds and the courts are using to justify 99% of the bullshit they're doing that are NOT SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED. And you and others buy that augment and swear that it's valid. Hell I guess it might be in your alternate universe.

Your argument in the opening paragraph directly above is non sequitur. The Feds as a group don't represent anyone. Can a court of the Judicial or a department of the Executive directly represent an individual? No, the Legislative directly represents the people; they are the law makers! A 10 year old taking out the trash or driving a car would be a State matter, and certainly not a concern of the Supremes unless it was in conflict with federal law. Regarding supremacy, when the several States entered the Union, each and every one ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the National government and accepted that when they signed on the bottom line. That is made as clear as day in Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Not the State Constitutions OR State laws OR Amendment X being bent to circumvent the rest of the US Constitution in peoples minds.

Regarding your objection to powers 'NOT SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED', let's examine one delegated power of Congress and see if that very rigid standard could logically be sustained in the real and functioning world. That of Article I, Section 8, Clause 7; "To establish post offices and post roads;"

Now that seems very straight forward, but can there be problems there? That clause doesn't state where the post roads are to go, or how wide the roadbed must be or how to prepare stream fording's and crossings or anything about a bridge's footings, the bridge width, the bridge height above the average flow level, roadway signage, right of way, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera! OH MY! But the framers were wise men!

They applied pen to parchment and wrote into the Constitution the last Congressional power at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

That is often referred to as the 'Necessary and Proper or the 'Elastic Clause' which is the source of the "Doctrine of Implied Powers". That gave Congress the power to enact other laws and agencies which were necessary and proper to construct Post Roads to specific specifications. Without the Necessary and Proper clause Congress would not have had the power to see to the actual planning and construction of even a single post Road! The enumerated powers would have been so large, so far flung, expansive and cumbersome that with every change in technology and circumstances, new amendments would be required to allow any necessary legislation.

Where can you find the enumerated powers to deport undocumented aliens, or the construction standards for a bridge on a post road, or the content of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, or the power to fund the Army Corps of Engineers? Congress would have been completely stymied to perform its duties if the anti-federalist Strict Constructionists were to have held sway and the United States would have become just another failed experiment. One cannot read the word "expressly" in the enumerated powers because that was the very problem with the Articles of Confederation...the word "expressly". The framer knew that through hard experience and avoided it purposefully.

The 'Doctrine of Implied Powers' is a very understandable and common sense principle. They are the powers employed by Congress not expressly extended in the Constitution, but which are NECESSARY AND PROPER TO EXECUTE THE ENUMERATED POWERS! If that concept is beyond your grasp then God Bless you!

The Marshall court never said what delegated power the feds were using to justify a National Bank, they just said it was necessary to expedite the financial dealings of the government, how exactly am I to quote chapter and verse they erred on when they never said which ones they were using to justify their opinion. Like I said numerous times, congress themselves proved it was not necessary by not renewing the charters, not once but twice. Those actions proved the Marshall court got it wrong, the banks were indeed not necessary at all or congress would have thought nothing about renewing them. Again exactly how am I to argue chapter and verse that the court got wrong, when they used none to justify their opinion. All they said was the feds say they need to do it and the court rubber stamped it.

You said you set aside the "summaries" you were using and read the full decision, but you obviously didn't or you forgot what you read. C.J. Marshall wrote in his opinion in McCulloch:
"But the Constitution of the United States has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means for the execution of the powers conferred on the Government to general reasoning. To its enumeration of powers is added that of making all [p412] laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department thereof." < McCulloch v. Maryland >

So NOW you have no excuses left. Cite the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution clearly displaying the Supremes got it wrong in McCulloch. Don't do a dance around it. DIRECTLY respond to the point!

If you knew the history, you would know that the First and Second Bank of the United Stated were created to pay down the national debt, being predominately WAR DEBT. So the obvious underlying necessity was Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Your reasoning as to why their charters weren't renewed does not hold water. For the First Bank, the Revolutionary War debt was essentially repaid so the necessity of the 20 year charter no longer applied and the charter not renewed. For the Second Bank, War of 1812 it was created for the same reason, to help with the $69 million War debt. But its charter was not renewed because of political reasons, the debt was nearly paid down in any case. Your reasoning is fatally flawed and does not stand up to historical fact!

in what article and clause did the States delegate the power to incorporate private concerns within their jurisdictions, to the feds? Short answer, they didn't, the feds assumed that power and again the Marshall court rubber stamped it.

Why haven't you disputed a States right to tax private corporations within their jurisdictions? Another point the Marshall court got WRONG.

Your first sentence make absolutely no sense. The several States have no right to delegate any power or obligation under the US Constitution.

IF you'll recall from McCulloch, the Supremes found it unconstitutional for a State, Maryland, to tax the Second Bank of the United States. That is a fairly good and concrete justification to not dispute the notion! I think you have missed a point throughout this entire exchange.

The Second Bank was operated under a FEDERAL CHARTER. State banks are operated under their particular STATE CHARTER. I think you don't understand the distinction. The following are from the Syllabus of McCulloch. Read them and try to understand the legal principles involved regarding the taxation of a federally chartered bank in the State of Maryland:

"The Bank of the United States has, constitutionally, a right to establish its branches or offices of discount and deposit within any state.

The State within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch.

The State governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed by the Government of the Union to execute its constitutional powers.

The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.

This principle does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the Bank of the United States in common with the other real property in a particular state, nor to a tax imposed on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State."

If you come back with more BS dodging and deflection, then I doubt I'll be this tolerant of your feigned ignorance beyond this one last time!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The virtues of federalism

In regard to the virtues of federalism, the following article makes a number of excellent points.

Obamacare Proves the Virtues of Federalism

The article begins:

”No issue in recent years has polarized Americans as much as Obamacare. It produced a party-line vote in Congress, a near-fatal court battle, a revolt by states that refused to run exchanges or expand Medicaid, dozens of House votes to repeal it and, now, a bungled launch that could be its undoing. It's a barroom brawl that never ends.”

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

US Constitution; Article VI Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

 

[johnwk]

The virtues of federalism

In regard to the virtues of federalism, the following article makes a number of excellent points.

Obamacare Proves the Virtues of Federalism

The article begins:

”No issue in recent years has polarized Americans as much as Obamacare. It produced a party-line vote in Congress, a near-fatal court battle, a revolt by states that refused to run exchanges or expand Medicaid, dozens of House votes to repeal it and, now, a bungled launch that could be its undoing. It's a barroom brawl that never ends.”

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

US Constitution; Article VI Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

Really? How about quoting my words which leads you to that unsubstantiated opinion?

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted.


JWK

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The virtues of federalism

In regard to the virtues of federalism, the following article makes a number of excellent points.

Obamacare Proves the Virtues of Federalism

The article begins:

”No issue in recent years has polarized Americans as much as Obamacare. It produced a party-line vote in Congress, a near-fatal court battle, a revolt by states that refused to run exchanges or expand Medicaid, dozens of House votes to repeal it and, now, a bungled launch that could be its undoing. It's a barroom brawl that never ends.”

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

US Constitution; Article VI Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

Really? How about quoting my words which leads you to that unsubstantiated opinion?

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted.


JWK

DUH! You quote Amendment X and I respond with the Supremacy clause and then you ask what the point is! You didn't recognize two defining characteristics of federalism juxtaposed with each other while inferring to be some kind of Guru on the topic of federalism. Then you ask me to quote you for the basis of my "unsubstantiated opinion". Are you even aware of what you write?

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. < Google >

un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed
ˌənsəbˈstan(t)SHēˌādəd/
adjective
adjective: unsubstantiated
not supported or proven by evidence. < Google >

Hey putz, if someone has an opinion its as likely as not to be unsubstantiated. And why don't you try doing a little analysis before applying your fingertips to the damn keyboard!

 

[johnwk]

The virtues of federalism

In regard to the virtues of federalism, the following article makes a number of excellent points.

Obamacare Proves the Virtues of Federalism

The article begins:

”No issue in recent years has polarized Americans as much as Obamacare. It produced a party-line vote in Congress, a near-fatal court battle, a revolt by states that refused to run exchanges or expand Medicaid, dozens of House votes to repeal it and, now, a bungled launch that could be its undoing. It's a barroom brawl that never ends.”

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

US Constitution; Article VI Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

Really? How about quoting my words which leads you to that unsubstantiated opinion?

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted.


JWK

DUH! You quote Amendment X and I respond with the Supremacy clause and then you ask what the point is! You didn't recognize two defining characteristics of federalism juxtaposed with each other while inferring to be some kind of Guru on the topic of federalism. Then you ask me to quote you for the basis of my "unsubstantiated opinion". Are you even aware of what you write?

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. < Google >

un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed
ˌənsəbˈstan(t)SHēˌādəd/
adjective
adjective: unsubstantiated
not supported or proven by evidence. < Google >

Hey putz, if someone has an opinion its as likely as not to be unsubstantiated. And why don't you try doing a little analysis before applying your fingertips to the damn keyboard!

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted. What was the quote's relationship with what I posted?


JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

US Constitution; Article VI Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

Really? How about quoting my words which leads you to that unsubstantiated opinion?

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted.


JWK

DUH! You quote Amendment X and I respond with the Supremacy clause and then you ask what the point is! You didn't recognize two defining characteristics of federalism juxtaposed with each other while inferring to be some kind of Guru on the topic of federalism. Then you ask me to quote you for the basis of my "unsubstantiated opinion". Are you even aware of what you write?

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. < Google >

un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed
ˌənsəbˈstan(t)SHēˌādəd/
adjective
adjective: unsubstantiated
not supported or proven by evidence. < Google >

Hey putz, if someone has an opinion its as likely as not to be unsubstantiated. And why don't you try doing a little analysis before applying your fingertips to the damn keyboard!

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted. What was the quote's relationship with what I posted?


JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

If that's the case, then you are fucking brain dead, and incapable of following a train of posts and extracting the information contained therein. Look up the word juxtaposed, see if you might get the connection between two items and then analyze that for it relevance to the topic of this thread THAT YOU STARTED! GOOD GRIEF, are you capable of finding your ass crack to wipe it when needed?

 

[johnwk]

And your point is?


JWK

The point is obvious in that you don't have a clue about Federalism or the status of the Constitution with regards to Federalism.

Really? How about quoting my words which leads you to that unsubstantiated opinion?

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted.


JWK

DUH! You quote Amendment X and I respond with the Supremacy clause and then you ask what the point is! You didn't recognize two defining characteristics of federalism juxtaposed with each other while inferring to be some kind of Guru on the topic of federalism. Then you ask me to quote you for the basis of my "unsubstantiated opinion". Are you even aware of what you write?

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. < Google >

un·sub·stan·ti·at·ed
ˌənsəbˈstan(t)SHēˌādəd/
adjective
adjective: unsubstantiated
not supported or proven by evidence. < Google >

Hey putz, if someone has an opinion its as likely as not to be unsubstantiated. And why don't you try doing a little analysis before applying your fingertips to the damn keyboard!

And I am still interested why you have quoted from the Constitution without commenting on that which you have quoted. What was the quote's relationship with what I posted?


JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

If that's the case, then you are fucking brain dead, and incapable of following a train of posts and extracting the information contained therein. Look up the word juxtaposed, see if you might get the connection between two items and then analyze that for it relevance to the topic of this thread THAT YOU STARTED! GOOD GRIEF, are you capable of finding your ass crack to wipe it when needed?

Well, I can see you are not here for a productive discussion and prefer to post insulting remarks and groundless accusations.

JWK


When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?