Another reason to support Newt~ Balance the budget in 5 yrs

[DiamondDave]

Here... I'll even link it for you

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[J.E.D]

Please show the specific power granted for such a thing...

You are yet another who thinks that because something has been done, it was done proper and is inherently right....

Again... the language of the constitution is not hard to understand... neither is the fact that the government, including the SC, is not above grabs to expand it's own power and to gain favor

There is a simple way to change the constitution to grant the federal government those powers... just a simple 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate and ratification of 3/4 of the states

You know what else isn't hard to understand? That SS, Medicare and Medicaid have been the law of the land and have withstood court challenges for decades. You can theorize about the intent of the founders all you like, but your opinion doesn't mean shit next to the SCOTUS. Talk to them. See if they think that entitlements are unconstitutional. I realize that you think you know more about constitutional law than they do, but the fact of the matter is that they are who they are and you are who you are. Until you become a SC justice and manage to get a majority of justices to agree with you and overturn SS, Medicare and Medicaid, you're just talking. Good luck

Again.. what I ask is simple.. please point out the power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution, that specifically grants the fed the ability to make and administer things such as SS...

The document is not hard to understand, and was intentionally written that way... just as it was intentionally written to limit the power of the fed, not grant it the power to do whatever it wanted

I don't have to point it out. It doesn't matter whether it exists or not. Plenty of laws exist that aren't specifically in the Constitution. That doesn't make them unconstitutional. SS, Medicaid and Medicare have been established law for decades. This has all been covered. It's in the history books. Talk to the SCOTUS. Good luck.

 

[J.E.D]

Here... I'll even link it for you

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I realize that cons don't agree, but the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and it's open to interpretation. If you can't wrap your head around that, then there's not much else to talk about. Take your theories to the SCOTUS. I'm sure they'll act post-haste on your recommendations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a simple way to change the constitution to grant the federal government those powers... just a simple 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate and ratification of 3/4 of the states

Then amend the Constitution to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unconstitutional,

if you're confident that's what the People want. If they don't, then, alas,

you're stuck with being a victim of the Constitution and the government it has produced.

Sorry bubba... it should have been amended to MAKE it constitutional... the process was NOT followed to begin with to actually grant that power to the fed...

As stated.. just because something was done wrongly, does not make it inherently validated

Again... show the power specifically granted within the constitution.... just because FDR stacked and changed the court to gain favor for what he wanted, does not mean it was correct to do so, even though his goal was achieved

If the Supreme Court is constitutional then its decisions are constitutional.

If you don't determine constitutionality by judicial review, how the hell else are you going to do it?

 

[DiamondDave]

Here... I'll even link it for you

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I realize that cons don't agree, but the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and it's open to interpretation. If you can't wrap your head around that, then there's not much else to talk about. Take your theories to the SCOTUS. I'm sure they'll act post-haste on your recommendations.

You are right it CAN be amended... which is what makes it a living document... 2/33 approval in the house, 2/3 approval in the senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states...

But.. that power was NOT granted to the fed... and there was no amendment to grant it to the fed when the power was seized...

Again... please show the specific power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution.... it's not a hard request

 

[DiamondDave]

You know what else isn't hard to understand? That SS, Medicare and Medicaid have been the law of the land and have withstood court challenges for decades. You can theorize about the intent of the founders all you like, but your opinion doesn't mean shit next to the SCOTUS. Talk to them. See if they think that entitlements are unconstitutional. I realize that you think you know more about constitutional law than they do, but the fact of the matter is that they are who they are and you are who you are. Until you become a SC justice and manage to get a majority of justices to agree with you and overturn SS, Medicare and Medicaid, you're just talking. Good luck

Again.. what I ask is simple.. please point out the power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution, that specifically grants the fed the ability to make and administer things such as SS...

The document is not hard to understand, and was intentionally written that way... just as it was intentionally written to limit the power of the fed, not grant it the power to do whatever it wanted

I don't have to point it out. It doesn't matter whether it exists or not. Plenty of laws exist that aren't specifically in the Constitution. That doesn't make them unconstitutional. SS, Medicaid and Medicare have been established law for decades. This has all been covered. It's in the history books. Talk to the SCOTUS. Good luck.

Yes.. plenty of laws are not in the constitution.... but ones that specifically grant powers to the federal government beyond those specifically granted in the constitution, are wrong... whether the power has already been seized or not.... just because the constitutional process has been thwarted for the sake of power, favor, lust, or whatever else, does not validate it's doing

 

[J.E.D]

Here... I'll even link it for you

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I realize that cons don't agree, but the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and it's open to interpretation. If you can't wrap your head around that, then there's not much else to talk about. Take your theories to the SCOTUS. I'm sure they'll act post-haste on your recommendations.

You are right it CAN be amended... which is what makes it a living document... 2/33 approval in the house, 2/3 approval in the senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states...

But.. that power was NOT granted to the fed... and there was no amendment to grant it to the fed when the power was seized...

Again... please show the specific power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution.... it's not a hard request

Show me where your theories supersede Congress and the SCOTUS. I don't make laws - Congress does. I don't decide what's constitutional - the SCOTUS does. I know that it's very difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but that's just the way it is. You want to change the law? Then become a senator, rep or SC justice.

 

[DiamondDave]

I realize that cons don't agree, but the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and it's open to interpretation. If you can't wrap your head around that, then there's not much else to talk about. Take your theories to the SCOTUS. I'm sure they'll act post-haste on your recommendations.

You are right it CAN be amended... which is what makes it a living document... 2/33 approval in the house, 2/3 approval in the senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states...

But.. that power was NOT granted to the fed... and there was no amendment to grant it to the fed when the power was seized...

Again... please show the specific power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution.... it's not a hard request

Show me where your theories supersede Congress and the SCOTUS. I don't make laws - Congress does. I don't decide what's constitutional - the SCOTUS does. I know that it's very difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but that's just the way it is. You want to change the law? Then become a senator, rep or SC justice.

The direct words within the constitution

Again... what I ask is simple.. please point out the specific power granted by the states through the constitution that gives the fed the authority to create, run, and administer something such as SS....

 

[J.E.D]

You are right it CAN be amended... which is what makes it a living document... 2/33 approval in the house, 2/3 approval in the senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states...

But.. that power was NOT granted to the fed... and there was no amendment to grant it to the fed when the power was seized...

Again... please show the specific power granted by the states to the fed via the constitution.... it's not a hard request

Show me where your theories supersede Congress and the SCOTUS. I don't make laws - Congress does. I don't decide what's constitutional - the SCOTUS does. I know that it's very difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but that's just the way it is. You want to change the law? Then become a senator, rep or SC justice.

The direct words within the constitution

Again... what I ask is simple.. please point out the specific power granted by the states through the constitution that gives the fed the authority to create, run, and administer something such as SS....

I don't care whether or not such a passage exists. I'm not a constitutional scholar. What I do know is this: SS, Medicare and Medicaid are the law of the land, and have been for decades. They have survived congressional challenges as well as SC challenges. You're not going to budge from your entrenched ideological position (as wrong as it is), and I'm not going to budge from the fact that these laws were deemed constitutional long ago. I'm done with this nonsense. Good luck convincing the SC to overturn established law. Let me know how it goes

 

[DiamondDave]

Show me where your theories supersede Congress and the SCOTUS. I don't make laws - Congress does. I don't decide what's constitutional - the SCOTUS does. I know that it's very difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but that's just the way it is. You want to change the law? Then become a senator, rep or SC justice.

The direct words within the constitution

Again... what I ask is simple.. please point out the specific power granted by the states through the constitution that gives the fed the authority to create, run, and administer something such as SS....

I don't care whether or not such a passage exists. I'm not a constitutional scholar. What I do know is this: SS, Medicare and Medicaid are the law of the land, and have been for decades. They have survived congressional challenges as well as SC challenges. You're not going to budge from your entrenched ideological position (as wrong as it is), and I'm not going to budge from the fact that these laws were deemed constitutional long ago. I'm done with this nonsense. Good luck convincing the SC to overturn established law. Let me know how it goes

You don't care because you want the benefit of the power... I understand that

But do you not understand that the states grant the power to the fed via the constitution... and that unless amended, the constitution limits the powers of the fed SPECIFICALLY... and that, by your admission, no passage exists within the constitution granting said power to the fed.... the position that is WRONG, is the one that has nothing to back it up...

As stated... whether the SC or congress or the prez or whomever, grabs power without constitutional authority is irrelevant.. it is still against the powers granted within the constitution... I know libs such as yourself hate that wrong is wrong... but it is still wrong, even when someone gets away with it

 

[geauxtohell]

Then amend the Constitution to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unconstitutional,

if you're confident that's what the People want. If they don't, then, alas,

you're stuck with being a victim of the Constitution and the government it has produced.

Sorry bubba... it should have been amended to MAKE it constitutional... the process was NOT followed to begin with to actually grant that power to the fed...

As stated.. just because something was done wrongly, does not make it inherently validated

Again... show the power specifically granted within the constitution.... just because FDR stacked and changed the court to gain favor for what he wanted, does not mean it was correct to do so, even though his goal was achieved

If the Supreme Court is constitutional then its decisions are constitutional.

If you don't determine constitutionality by judicial review, how the hell else are you going to do it?

Watching Cons try and argue their way around this is always amusing.

I guess our system has been horribly flawed since Marbury V. Madison in 1803. I guess it took us less then 30 years to jump the tracks. The founding fathers would be so disappointed.

Oh wait...... Most of them were alive at that time. One of them, Jefferson, was even president. In fact, Marbury was a victory for Jefferson.

I just find it amusing when anyone claims fiat power over what this country "should be".

As if.

At any rate, I don't agree with the SCOTUS much, but I recognize that their function to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land is entirely appropriate and logical even if not specifically enumerated.

Who else would do it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's put out the truth, shall we?

Gingrich on Obamacare and the Individual Mandate | The Weekly Standard

Newt on Obamacare and the individual mandate.

I don't think so. did he cut his tongue back in the 90's or was he born with a forked tongue?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwVp0cwOMA]Gingrich Supports 'Variation' on Obamacare-Type Health Insurance Mandate - YouTube[/ame]

Allow me to hold you to every word and ideal you've ever uttered.

That video is from May of this year. Hardly ancient history.

 

[BenNatuf]

Sorry bubba... it should have been amended to MAKE it constitutional... the process was NOT followed to begin with to actually grant that power to the fed...

As stated.. just because something was done wrongly, does not make it inherently validated

Again... show the power specifically granted within the constitution.... just because FDR stacked and changed the court to gain favor for what he wanted, does not mean it was correct to do so, even though his goal was achieved

If the Supreme Court is constitutional then its decisions are constitutional.

If you don't determine constitutionality by judicial review, how the hell else are you going to do it?

Watching Cons try and argue their way around this is always amusing.

I guess our system has been horribly flawed since Marbury V. Madison in 1803. I guess it took us less then 30 years to jump the tracks. The founding fathers would be so disappointed.

Oh wait...... Most of them were alive at that time. One of them, Jefferson, was even president. In fact, Marbury was a victory for Jefferson.

I just find it amusing when anyone claims fiat power over what this country "should be".

As if.

At any rate, I don't agree with the SCOTUS much, but I recognize that their function to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land is entirely appropriate and logical even if not specifically enumerated.

Who else would do it?

If that is your understanding of Marbury, you lack understanding. The only thing marbury did was confirm the courts ability to decide the constituionality of a law in the application of it in a court. It is far reaching in that by doing so they defacto make enforcement of the law moot (who would apply it when the case got to court?). It specifically states that other agencies should consider laws anethema to the constituion as void, there is no requirement for any government agency to enforce a law it considers unconstituional, and in fact there is a strongly implied (stated would be closer to the truth) duty for them to not do so. It does not require they wait for a SCOTUS decission as it is not the SCOTUS that makes a law unconstitutional, it's the constitution.

A law written that is anethema to the constitution is void when it's written, not when the court says so. What Marbury effectively does is give the courts the power to stop the government from enforcing laws the courts find unconstitutional by refusing to apply them in court, they have no power to force the government to actually enforce a law they consider unconstituional themselves.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Bump for Newt's rising numbers!!!

 

[FactFinder]

Another reason to support Newt~ Balance the budget in 5 yrs

Cuz, he is about the only hope y'all have left in a parade of clowns unless you want to fund Santorum. He is the only reasonable candidate you got.

 

[BenNatuf]

Another reason to support Newt~ Balance the budget in 5 yrs

Cuz, he is about the only hope y'all have left in a parade of clowns unless you want to fund Santorum. He is the only reasonable candidate you got.

LOL... Nah, he's just the best man for the job.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes.. plenty of laws are not in the constitution.... but ones that specifically grant powers to the federal government beyond those specifically granted in the constitution, are wrong...

Based on what authority? Rightist dogma?

just because the constitutional process has been thwarted for the sake of power, favor, lust, or whatever else, does not validate it's doing

What evidence do you have that the ‘Constitutional process’ has been ‘thwarted’? That you disagree with how the Court has ruled over the decades? That’s not evidence, that’s ignorant rightwing whining.

please point out the specific power granted by the states through the constitution that gives the fed the authority to create, run, and administer something such as SS....

Here:

Helvering v. Davis

If that is your understanding of Marbury, you lack understanding. The only thing marbury did was confirm the courts ability to decide the constituionality of a law in the application of it in a court. It is far reaching in that by doing so they defacto make enforcement of the law moot (who would apply it when the case got to court?). It specifically states that other agencies should consider laws anethema to the constituion as void, there is no requirement for any government agency to enforce a law it considers unconstituional, and in fact there is a strongly implied (stated would be closer to the truth) duty for them to not do so. It does not require they wait for a SCOTUS decission as it is not the SCOTUS that makes a law unconstitutional, it's the constitution.

Correct.

A law written that is anethema to the constitution is void when it's written, not when the court says so. What Marbury effectively does is give the courts the power to stop the government from enforcing laws the courts find unconstitutional by refusing to apply them in court, they have no power to force the government to actually enforce a law they consider unconstituional themselves.

That’s not completely accurate.

Marbury also codified the doctrine of judicial review and the Court’s authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.

Marbury v. Madison

Also:

[Chief Justice Marshall] declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; however, he ruled that the Court lacked the power to issue writs of mandamus. While a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, the Court ruled that this exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore null and void. So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

And as Professor Joel Grossman noted:

[T]he Court - in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Marshall - ruled that it was not bound by an act of Congress that was "repugnant to the Constitution."

William Rehnquist has described Marbury as "the most famous case ever decided by the United States Supreme Court." But, at the time it was issued, neither Marshall nor his chief adversary (and cousin), Thomas Jefferson, could have imagined the further growth and acceptance of the power of judicial review that Marbury declared.

FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison

Other branches of government may indeed interpret the Constitution in the context of their mandate; but the doctrine of judicial review is unique to the Supreme Court; as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so too are the Court’s rulings – they are consequently final and binding.

 

[del]

Newt has a proven track record of being a deficit hawk. Newt states he will balance the budget in 5 years.

Newt Gingrich Estimates Budget Could Be Balanced in 5 Years - ABC News


Newt brought Bubba kicking and screaming to the table regarding welfare reform and a balanced budget. He's as proven leader.

if i needed someone to tell my hospitalized cancer stricken wife that i wanted a divorce, newt would be my first choice.

otherwise, you can keep him.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bump for Newt's rising numbers!!!

Yeah - bump that shit!

 

[Synthaholic]

Newt has a proven track record of being a deficit hawk. Newt states he will balance the budget in 5 years.

Newt Gingrich Estimates Budget Could Be Balanced in 5 Years - ABC News


Newt brought Bubba kicking and screaming to the table regarding welfare reform and a balanced budget. He's as proven leader.

if i needed someone to tell my hospitalized cancer stricken wife that i wanted a divorce, newt would be my first choice.

otherwise, you can keep him.

Newt's a one-man Death Panel!