Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where does it mention these "inherent powers" you speak of, mr. hamilton?Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution. Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates. An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.Where does the Constitution say that?
The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.
That's because you don't realize it is what made upholding the federal laws against marijuana, even in states that legalized it. Read Antonin Scalia.I got to chuckling at the mention of Wickard/Filburn earlier. Heh heh.
That is a liberal argument. Conservatives are "texturalists" They go by what they said, not by what they meant to say.The federalist papers establishes intent. Which might not be too important to federal supremacists, i reckon.
Imagine if the 2nd amendment said, the right to bear flintlocks.
And they made the amendment process so difficult and so daunting, that only compelling and fundamental issues would be added to the constitution.Its called an amendment. A constitutional amendment.
The document isnt "alive" like you federal supremacists try to claim.
Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.
The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.
One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them. The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.Where does it mention these "inherent powers" you speak of, mr. hamilton?
Exactly. That was the point.Imagine if the 2nd amendment said, the right to bear flintlocks.
And they made the amendment process so difficult and so daunting, that only compelling and fundamental issues would be added to the constitution.Its called an amendment. A constitutional amendment.
The document isnt "alive" like you federal supremacists try to claim.
Micromanaging it's content would never survive the requirement that 3/4ths of states debate and agree to it's necessity.
I’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong
Show me a single case declaring it unconstitutional. Otherwise, it is Constitutional
Rand Paul is from Kentucky
If any state needs a Dept of Education, it is Kentucky
It is a legal Department until a court declares otherwiseI’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong
Show me a single case declaring it unconstitutional. Otherwise, it is Constitutional
Constitutionally speaking, case law is irrelevant, RWer.
Has it stopped the courts from abusing it? Of course not. But constitutionally speaking ,case law is irrelevant.'
In fact, we just saw the SCOTUS effectively say that the other day. It's about time.
But, yes, I get it. 40 years is a long time. Hey, take the money and run, though, screw it. I don't hate you for it.
It also means they worded the constitution in broad enough terms that amendments would not be needed to stretch it to cover issues not imagined when it was written.Exactly. That was the point.
If the rest of the country wanted your statism, the amendment process wouldnt be so difficult, ey?
If it wasn't for case law, the USSC would not have a say in what the constitution means. That is not an enumerated power or jurisdiction of Article 3.Constitutionally speaking, case law is irrelevant, RWer.
Has it stopped the courts from abusing it? Of course not. But constitutionally speaking ,case law is irrelevant.'
In fact, we just saw the SCOTUS effectively say that the other day. It's about time.
But, yes, I get it. 40 years is a long time. Hey, take the money and run, though, screw it. I don't hate you for it.
umm clause 18 of sec 8Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.
The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them. The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.Where does it mention these "inherent powers" you speak of, mr. hamilton?
One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them. The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.
You know that "laws" have to be signed by the president of the united states. Congresses compelling private citizens before them is not a "law", it's an inherent power. Otherwise the chief executive would in violation of separation of powers have veto power over the work of congress. And one house of congress would have veto power over the work of the other house.umm clause 18 of sec 8
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.
If ones testimony was helped in creating laws, it is an enumerated power.
It is an ENUMERATED power if it pertains to writing constitutional legislation.One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them. The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.You know that "laws" have to be signed by the president of the united states. Cogresses compelling private citizens before them is not a "law", it's an inherent power. Otherwise the chief executive would in violation of separation of powers have veto power over the work of congress.umm clause 18 of sec 8
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.
If ones testimony was helped in creating laws, it is an enumerated power.
In short, you posted B.S. that it's covered by congresses making a law to compel witnesses.
In short, you posted B.S. that it's covered by congresses making a law to compel witnesses.
You're confused. It's an inherent power, not an enumerated one. Consult a dictionary if you don't know the difference.It is an ENUMERATED power if it pertains to writing constitutional legislation.
I dont think you are reading what i am writing.