bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
That is true. Officially, when the Court decides Up means Up, it actually does Officially, until an Appeal is Won, and the ruling changed or overturned. That is not something to take pride in, necessarily. Can you guess why Sparky?
Someday We will find the Spine to correct Injustices spawned by Invention and imagination, through the Amendment Process. Then you will only have your self to impose this crap on. No Food Stamps and Relief, did not exist in the Founding Times, not as a function of the Federal Government. That is Fact.
Amendment is an Alternative to the Court. Either one serves Justice, or one doesn't. Injustice may rule the day, but time will heal all wounds. The first step is to recognize abuse where we find it. The second is to shed light on it so that others may see. The Court is granted It's authority by the Constitution. The Constitution is granted it's Authority by the Consent of 75% of the People or more. Abuse the Trust, lose the support, plain and simple.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,491
- 263,772
- 3,615
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
I wouldn't go that far..it's awful hard to start these sort of things against a sitting President while engaged in conflict. Really bad form.
daveman
Diamond Member
daveman
Diamond Member
From Federalist #41. Madison
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
Wow!!!!! That really jumps out at you!!!!! It Trumps All of the Other Functions of The Federal Government!!!!! Let' Bankrupt the Nation some more!!!!! Print up some more Food Stamps!!!!! The Government does not have enough Totalitarian power????? It still doesn't have enough????? What else must it betray, to attain the power it seeks RW?????
Who are you kidding?????
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
Wow!!!!! That really jumps out at you!!!!! It Trumps All of the Other Functions of The Federal Government!!!!! Let' Bankrupt the Nation some more!!!!! Print up some more Food Stamps!!!!! The Government does not have enough Totalitarian power????? It still doesn't have enough????? What else must it betray, to attain the power it seeks RW?????
Who are you kidding?????
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Perhaps if I code it using posix:
#!/bin/ksh
#This script provides for the general welfare
WELFARE=$(health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being)
CITIZENS=$(cat /scripts/oper/config/us_citizens_list)
for c in ${CITIZENS}
do
/usr/local/bin/fping -t250 ${c} >/dev/null 2>&1
if (($? == 0));then
print "This ${c} appears to be in trouble!! Using WELFARE function"
$WELFARE ${c}
else
print "This ${c} appears to be fine..exiting.."
fi
exit 0
done
Dunno..
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,491
- 263,772
- 3,615
Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #270
daveman has the right to his opinion, but not to define standing law. This issue has already been long settled.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,491
- 263,772
- 3,615
As a citizen, Daveman has the right to challenge any of these laws in a court of law. That is the place where these interpretations are legally made
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #273
That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.
daveman
Diamond Member
Perhaps if you stop assuming that the use of the word welfare in the Constitution doesn't mean giving tax money to people who can work but won't in exchange for their dutifully pulling the D lever.
Dunno...
daveman
Diamond Member
Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.
Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?
daveman
Diamond Member
It's funny, the way you claim to be a moderate Republican when all evidence says you're a moonbat.
daveman
Diamond Member
Well, if anyone's an expert on lip-flapping around here, it'd be Jake his ownself.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #278
Your lips are flapping, daveman, and your comments are so useless.
daveman
Diamond Member
Then I suggest you put me on Ignore, since you have so much difficulty with conflicting views.
If you want an echo chamber, I suggest DemocraticUnderground. You'll find loads of like-minded people there.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #280
Flap flap flap . . . flap flap ... did I say flap flap flap? You are so unoriginal.
You are so unoriginal.Similar threads
