Who should pay, and how much

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.

Did you miss the DC gun ruling?

Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

I have little problem with incorporation of the US Constitution on the States as long as the FEDERAL Constitution is not ignored when it suits politicians and ALL of the Constitution applies.

I have a serious problem with the fact only part of the Constitution is actually considered incorporated. Those portions the Fed does not want to apply they just ignore. And sheep like you let them. Until the 14th Amendment though the States were not covered by the Federal Constitution and the 14th is the sole reason the Fed claims it applies to States now.

I suspect the creators of the 14th did not intend for that to be the case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.

Did you miss the DC gun ruling?

Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

 

[Gunny]

With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.

This is a no-brainer. All you unconstitutional nitwits who are so willing to give MY money to your favorite charities should have to foot the entire bill. It's YOUR idea. Set an example we can admire.

 

[Iriemon]

Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

I'm think the part south of the Potomac did revert back to Virginia.

 

[Iriemon]

Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

I have little problem with incorporation of the US Constitution on the States as long as the FEDERAL Constitution is not ignored when it suits politicians and ALL of the Constitution applies.

I have a serious problem with the fact only part of the Constitution is actually considered incorporated. Those portions the Fed does not want to apply they just ignore. And sheep like you let them. Until the 14th Amendment though the States were not covered by the Federal Constitution and the 14th is the sole reason the Fed claims it applies to States now.

I suspect the creators of the 14th did not intend for that to be the case.

I let them because 1) I don't see it as unconsitutional at all, and 2) I approve of programs like SS. I like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged, disabled and temporarily out of luck living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

What have you, the folks that claim the government has been unconstitutional for 75 years, done to stop them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

I have little problem with incorporation of the US Constitution on the States as long as the FEDERAL Constitution is not ignored when it suits politicians and ALL of the Constitution applies.

I have a serious problem with the fact only part of the Constitution is actually considered incorporated. Those portions the Fed does not want to apply they just ignore. And sheep like you let them. Until the 14th Amendment though the States were not covered by the Federal Constitution and the 14th is the sole reason the Fed claims it applies to States now.

I suspect the creators of the 14th did not intend for that to be the case.

I let them because 1) I don't see it as unconsitutional at all, and 2) I approve of programs like SS. I like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged, disabled and temporarily out of luck living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

What have you, the folks that claim the government has been unconstitutional for 75 years, done to stop them?

Ahh yes, rather then try to get the Congress and the Government to obey the Constitution through words, court battles and new Laws, we should rise up in armed rebellion?

Hate to break it to you dumb ass but LOTS of people DO live in poverty and under Highway Bridges. And they beg at stoplights, businesses and a horde of other places. Some are the mentally ill that Democrats threw out on the streets in the 70's, some are people unable to get SS cause either then never had a job or did not have one long enough ( first 5 years do not count) or , including the previous, are not old enough to get it with out it being a disability , which by the way has a 2 year or longer wait and will be most likely turned down.

THE STATES are responsible for the people. The Federal Government is responsible to ensure the States work together and maintain a legit Government. The Federal Government provides a single voice for foreign discussion, trade and trade amongst the several States.

Once again dumb ass, the STATES should be taxing and running any Social programs for regular citizens. The Federal Government has no authority at all.

 

[Ravi]

Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

I did not know that.

Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

I did not know that.

Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

Not anymore. But they could have done so before the Incorporation deal with the 14th. However that would have caused the State a real problem since the National Guard did not exist before about the mid 1880's and each State was required to maintain an ARMED militia from which the Federal Government could call a portion as needed. In fact the original National Guard units were all State Militias that were renamed National Guard and eventually completely integrated into the National Military.

 

[Iriemon]

So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

I did not know that.

Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

Not according to the recent Supreme Court decision.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Mayor has Mayoral power but HIS boss is the Congress if they so chose. Private property should NOT exist in that 10 mile square. It is the same concept as letting the military sell parcels of land from military bases to private citizens or Companies.

And personally if private property exists in DC those portions should revert to either Maryland or Virginia since the land was ceded FOR the Federal Government, not to create a quasi City State.

I did not know that.

Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

Not according to the recent Supreme Court decision.

Which is based on the concept that the 14th Amendment incorprated all the Constitution onto the States. However prior to the 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, one in 39 and the recent one, the Government ,as it pleased, simply ignored the 2nd Amendment and continues to Ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[Ravi]

I did not know that.

Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?

Not according to the recent Supreme Court decision.

Which is based on the concept that the 14th Amendment incorprated all the Constitution onto the States. However prior to the 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, one in 39 and the recent one, the Government ,as it pleased, simply ignored the 2nd Amendment and continues to Ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

So why is that a problem? Isn't it a good thing that the states cannot take away rights that the US constitution gives us?

 

[Iriemon]

I have little problem with incorporation of the US Constitution on the States as long as the FEDERAL Constitution is not ignored when it suits politicians and ALL of the Constitution applies.

I have a serious problem with the fact only part of the Constitution is actually considered incorporated. Those portions the Fed does not want to apply they just ignore. And sheep like you let them. Until the 14th Amendment though the States were not covered by the Federal Constitution and the 14th is the sole reason the Fed claims it applies to States now.

I suspect the creators of the 14th did not intend for that to be the case.

I let them because 1) I don't see it as unconsitutional at all, and 2) I approve of programs like SS. I like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged, disabled and temporarily out of luck living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

What have you, the folks that claim the government has been unconstitutional for 75 years, done to stop them?

Ahh yes, rather then try to get the Congress and the Government to obey the Constitution through words, court battles and new Laws, we should rise up in armed rebellion?

Got me. Weren't you the one saying in the other thread you'd take up arms against our country if they tried to raise your taxes? I think so.

But you're the one who was bitching about "sheeple" not doing anything. Seems to me the only ones who should be doing anything are those with the misguided idea that everyone in our government is violating the Constitution for the past 75 years.

Hate to break it to you dumb ass

Speaking of which, the last time you called me that you never backed up your assertion that I claimed Clinton created 22 million jobs. You cut n ran.

So we see your MO -- make baseless, unfounded statements, and then call anyone who corrects you "dumbass". Then cut-n-run when called out. It's typical behavior of those who can't formulate persuasive arguemnts.

but LOTS of people DO live in poverty and under Highway Bridges. And they beg at stoplights, businesses and a horde of other places. Some are the mentally ill that Democrats threw out on the streets in the 70's, some are people unable to get SS cause either then never had a job or did not have one long enough ( first 5 years do not count) or , including the previous, are not old enough to get it with out it being a disability , which by the way has a 2 year or longer wait and will be most likely turned down.

Sure. And hordes more would be without things like SS and unemployment compensation.

THE STATES are responsible for the people. The Federal Government is responsible to ensure the States work together and maintain a legit Government. The Federal Government provides a single voice for foreign discussion, trade and trade amongst the several States.

Once again dumb ass, the STATES should be taxing and running any Social programs for regular citizens. The Federal Government has no authority at all.

Hmm. SS is a federal program. Not a state program. Once again you've proved your ignorance which you've tried to cover with juvenile name calling.

Debate hint: Try getting your facts accurate and your assertions correct. I've found that many people find that to be more persuasive in a debate that spouting nonsense while calling people names.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not according to the recent Supreme Court decision.

Which is based on the concept that the 14th Amendment incorprated all the Constitution onto the States. However prior to the 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, one in 39 and the recent one, the Government ,as it pleased, simply ignored the 2nd Amendment and continues to Ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

So why is that a problem? Isn't it a good thing that the states cannot take away rights that the US constitution gives us?

ONLY if ALL the Constitution applies. The Federal Government picks and choses which part applies and which does not. They completely IGNORE the 9th and 10th Amendment and until the recent ruling on the 2nd IGNORED it as well and are trying to continue to ignore it.

The Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to lay burdens on the State from which the State has to pay, forced into it by the Fed.

 

[editec]

Which is based on the concept that the 14th Amendment incorprated all the Constitution onto the States. However prior to the 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, one in 39 and the recent one, the Government ,as it pleased, simply ignored the 2nd Amendment and continues to Ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments.

So why is that a problem? Isn't it a good thing that the states cannot take away rights that the US constitution gives us?

ONLY if ALL the Constitution applies. The Federal Government picks and choses which part applies and which does not. They completely IGNORE the 9th and 10th Amendment and until the recent ruling on the 2nd IGNORED it as well and are trying to continue to ignore it.

The Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to lay burdens on the State from which the State has to pay, forced into it by the Fed.

thank you for you expert opinions on Consitutional law.

I know whenever I want to understand extremely complex legal issues, I always turn to a gunny sargent for explanations.