The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[ThoughtCrimes]

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

 

[OKTexas]

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

I don't think many are impressed with your use of the Federalist Papers, and

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

It was three people's opinions of how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution was ratified, and even the three disagreed with each other. Citing the Federalist Papers in some court cases, is good legal tactics; as someone said: citing the framers in some court cases is similar to citing the Bible. What evidence do we have that the Court relies on the Papers?

Think about it and sprinkle your thoughts with a little reason. Why would any SCOTUS Justice writing an opinion, concurrence or dissent cite from the Federalist? How about 'original intent' of the framers! Comparing the Federalist to the bible is just plain silly and ignorant.

If SCOTUS didn't rely on the Federalist Papers, why the HELL would they have cited them in well over 200 cases in the last 220 years (206 cases between 1789 and 1985) < http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=fac_articles >? If the Supremes didn't rely on them why the Hell would they be citing them in their opinions, concurrences and dissents? Engage brain and think about that!!!!

I just told you, by giving a boost to one's decision by citing the framers, founding fathers, Constitutionalist scholars, medal of honor winners, George Washington or anyone that will make their decision more in tune with that most people think of as America.
Do you think the Court is unaware of its image in America? Is the Congress, the president? The Court plays the political game also, it just does it on a slightly higher plane, that many Americans miss,

All you have is your unfounded and baseless OPINIONS, ignorance of existing evidence presented and strident a strident opposition and acceptance of facts. FACTS trump conflicting OPINIONS every time! You have nothing at all worthwhile to discuss at this time, so I'm done with you!

Can't cope, eh? There are some excellent texts on this very subject. I can give you one if you like, By the way, Jay never attended the Constitution convention and Hamilton seldom.

Then post citations from these "excellent texts" to prove your points. damn that's really easy, but only if you have the actual "excellent texts" to draw upon. Bet you will not do that, but instead try to shuffle around that proof to supply only more vacuous opinions.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

 

[whitehall]

Thanks to the federal education system most college graduates couldn't place the quote "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" so it's a waste of time to try to educate voters about the wisdom of federalism.

 

[OKTexas]

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

 

[OKTexas]

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You fucking FOOL! I have NEVER claimed there existed any need for a National bank. That concept that you keep trying to paint me with is a contrivance in your mind alone, as a device to shift the narrative.

SCOTUS said you are dead fucking wrong about a State's authority to tax a Federal entity. If you don't comprehend that take it up the Supremes and tell them they fucked up...I'm sure they'll listen to your "vast constitutional knowledge", change their ways and correct their error you noted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Hey, maybe you can get placed on the High Court as a Constitutional Guide to keep the justices on the straight and narrow. You could become famous as the Supreme Ass!

You're wrong AGAIN about the Second Bank, and I can't believe the bullshit you wrote about it! You idiotically claim, "BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power."

Congress passed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank, but President Jackson vetoed the bill in 1832. So you are dead fucking wrong on that point. Also, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) the Supremes ruled the Second Bank Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. So besides being totally WRONG AGAIN, you obviously lied about reading the entire opinion in McCulloch since that fact appears in both the Syllabus and the Opinion, you lying piece of crap!

You are one really dishonest piece of shit!

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

The Hell you have proven me wrong. You're a first class PHONY who refuses to defend your assertions because they are without any bases for a 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 string 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!

 

[OKTexas]

You still don't get it, neither the First or Second National Banks were federal entities, they were privately held corporations, the share holders in the Second National Bank included about 1000 foreigners. Once you wrap your head around that concept, the States have every right to tax them. The court got it wrong, period.

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.

In your opinion.....Choose your response carefully....Is the federal government "superior" to the states?
Before you answer read this....CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is so stupid it's self fulfilling. You're trying to live out a Star Wars fantasy in a Star Trek universe. Well, good luck with that.

All liberals believe the federal government should have absolute power over everything. For this ( Washington) where decisions most favorable to the liberal agenda have come.

*yawn*

I've chosen my words carefully. You're a delusional lunatic.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

NO, you don't get it fool! The Supremes said you are dead fucking WRONG and I agree with that. You're an idiot tilting at windmills with a needle!

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

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!

 

[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

 

[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."

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, and they got it worng, has they had before and many, many times since. I see now you only rebuttal is the wrongheaded court, How about you admit that a State has every right to tax private corporations.

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

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.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It's your assertion so you prove that the State of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank and prove SCOTUS wrong in the bargin! I have asked you before for this but you keep failing and instead shift that responsibility to myself to prove your assertion for you. How fucking absurdly imbecilic you are!

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

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!

 

[OKTexas]

Take you name calling an shove it up your ass, I've proved you wrong, you refuse to accept it. So fuck off.

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.

 

[easyt65]

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

 

[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

 

[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