Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

[Charles Stucker]

stucker, its called the rule of law.

WRONG
When the constitution is violated, it is not the rule of law, it is mob rule.
When individual states rights are trampled so that the mob in another state can have their whims, then it is not a rule of law. When the three branches, which are designed to check each other to limit government growth work together it is not the rule of law.

 

[Vanquish]

Stucker gets the tin-foil hat award today.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Stucker gets the tin-foil hat award today.

Because you believe the Government has not expanded drastically since the constitutional checks and balances which limited growth were removed?
You're as stupid as Old Rocks and TruthMatters combined.

 

[antagon]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

 

[Charles Stucker]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

Supremacy clause means Federal laws trump State laws, but when Federal Laws violate the constitution you NO LONGER HAVE THE RULE OF LAW unless the SCOTUS backs the constitution and checks the Legislative and executive branch. SCOTUS has failed in their charge since before I was born.

The unchecked growth of the Federal government is PRECISELY why we need a constitution.

 

[Murf76]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

The Supremacy Clause doesn't allow Congress to just make up laws will ye nil ye. They still have to live within their enumerated powers.

 

[Vanquish]

And the currently interpreted Commerce Clause allows pretty much anything affected by interstate commerce to be regulated and ruled over.

 

[Charles Stucker]

And the currently interpreted Commerce Clause allows pretty much anything affected by interstate commerce to be regulated and ruled over.

Which is precisely the problem - the interpretation has become so nebulous as to be ludicrous. When the SCOTUS fails to stop such abuse the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Balance needs to be restored. The US Constitution needs to be made supreme once more and the politicians stripped of their current abusive level of power.

 

[Murf76]

And the currently interpreted Commerce Clause allows pretty much anything affected by interstate commerce to be regulated and ruled over.

Which has pretty much been Charles' point... that the Judicial Branch is not doing its job of checking the growth of government by adhering to the Constitution. Instead, they build upon other faulty interpretations.

If the intent of the founders was that anything affected by interstate commerce should be under the control of Congress... there's no point in bothering with the ideal of "limited government", no point in having a Constitution at all. No, their original intent was simply to keep the States from imposing tariffs on one another.

Do you HONESTLY think that Congress should be able to dictate whether or not you can grow a tomato plant in your backyard? Is THAT your idea of being free?
Because under Wickard, they can regulate anything they take a notion to regulate, even if it never leaves your property. If they decide that homegrown tomatoes affect market prices across state lines... they're right up your ass.

It utterly AMAZES me that you people don't seem to care how much liberty you give up... just so long as you approve of the asshat who's got your balls in his hand.

 

[antagon]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

The Supremacy Clause doesn't allow Congress to just make up laws will ye nil ye. They still have to live within their enumerated powers.

i understand the lines of reason.

stucker is crying a river over not being able to buy artillery; the commerce clause and coercion in the spend clause can facilitate a national ban on such items, as history has shown, even to the chagrin of those few folks who want chainguns to be legal.

 

[antagon]

its called the supremacy clause, stucker. it's in the same constitution as the parts neoconservative chicken-littles love to champion. read it much?

Supremacy clause means Federal laws trump State laws, but when Federal Laws violate the constitution you NO LONGER HAVE THE RULE OF LAW unless the SCOTUS backs the constitution and checks the Legislative and executive branch. SCOTUS has failed in their charge since before I was born.

The unchecked growth of the Federal government is PRECISELY why we need a constitution.

i know you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. so did chicken little, alas... but you could cool it with the size=7 shit, captain. i could understand regular type just as effectively.

we're in agreement up to the point that you feel that the government and the scotus are outside the bounds of the constitution. that and im generally less paranoid when it comes to the rule of law.

 

[Vanquish]

Are you really taking him seriously? He can't even grasp the concept of experts.

 

[Charles Stucker]

but you could cool it with the size=7 shit, captain. i could understand regular type just as effectively.

Yet you still believe that more government is always better government. If there is no government at all then that statement is true, but once a certain size is reached, more government is worse government. Otherwise every state controlled economy throughout history would perform better than the freer economies with smaller governments. You take as an article of faith that the US has not passed that point, but if you were to read the opinions of the framers of the constitution you might find them extremely wary of such a massive government as we have now. It simply suits your preconceptions to have more socialism and hence you blithely accept more government as better.

Did you understand a single word?
Or are you still a liberal socialist idiot?

 

[emilynghiem]

Try not paying income taxes. The people sent to arrest you for that crime will carry guns.

Try to collect the amount you were guaranteed when the government forced you to make Socialist Security "investments" and are now denied because you decided to also invest your own money for retirement. The people sent to arrest you for that crime will carry guns.

Exercise your constitutional right to bear military grade arms by purchasing a heavy Ma Deuce 50 cal machinegun. The people sent to arrest you for that crime will carry guns. A lot of GUNS

As the hero of one of our current president's advisers once said "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"
The government sure seem to believe that "truth" even if they forgot some of the self evident ones our founding fathers recognized.

Dear Charles:

1. First it's not just guns but lawful enforcement in the context of defense of the Constitution ie a well regulated militia, all the powerful militia groups stand on Constitutional ground so that is the key, not the guns themselves. David Koresh got himself and a compound of innocent people burned up because he went the other direction toward lawlessness. The laws are on your side, so stand by that; and you won't have to use your gun most of the time.

2. Secondly, there are legal ways to pay your taxes elsewhere besides govt.
You can invest in real estate rental properties, and deduct all your expenses.
You can build a school or consulting business, and deduct your business expenses.
So why not build your own teaching hospital program in conjunction with a local church or school, and deduct the expenses that are business or charity related.
If you make it a business to teach microlending and community development to help vets or mentally ill people and families to set up and own their own housing programs, with paid live in assistants, that could either be a business or a charity, depending how you want to operate. Nonprofit donations are partially deductible; business costs can be 100%.

3. Lastly, there are powerful ways to enforce laws without guns or force.
Many people have been known to change or turn lives around just sharing the power of forgiveness and adopting the law by conscience, as taught in Christianity and the Bible.
Some of these changes are not even possible by threat of force which causes resistance.

The same empowerment using Scripture applies to enforcing Constitutional laws and ethics. (see Code of Ethics for Government Service http://www.ethics-commission.net)
When more people adopt and enforce these standards by conscience, similar to the militia who take similar vows as any other official or officer of the law should, then you share in the unified spirit of the law that binds us and our actions to adhere to common principles.

That is more powerful than any gun by itself.

That is ONE positive benefit I see from this health care bill -- the amount of public outreach and education on Constitutional law enforcement, using words not weapons.
Only where words fail, and there is more fear than faith, people may resort to force.
But where faith in the law overcomes fear of injustice, the force of truth prevails and compels. You just can't be a hypocrite, but must abide by the same laws you enforce.

All people respond to common truth and common love of humanity, when given in a consistent spirit. All people reject imposition when given by corruption, abuse or hypocrisy.

We just have to remember and help each other to connect and stay in the right by conscience, and indeed we will find we are fighting for the same protections and principles.

We just don't always trust or understand each other as individuals or groups with different priorities or ways of expressing these same principles. One group fights for freedom from external government control using guns as a symbol; another uses abortion rights as their benchmark, but it's the same fear and same fight regardless which angle you take on it.

But if we stick to common principles, you would be amazed what is possible.
Nobody I have ever met wanted the government to enforce laws without our consent.
We just take turns fighting or forgiving one battle or the next, but it's the same principle.

The Constitution does not need to be enforced with guns, but that is what happens when people don't focus on equal respect for the laws. If we can agree to start on the same page, the guns and force aren't necessary for defense. We can be more civilized than that.

I have seen a lot of intense civil Constitutional education going on because of this bill, so that is actually a good sign. Please know you have more common allies than enemies.
Do not let fear frustrate or divide and conquer your efforts by discrediting anyone.

Corrections and solutions will come from the people working together, there is no need for any threats. Just peaceful presence and respect for common laws. Speaks for itself.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem

 

[Vanquish]

Chuck,

Just as today, there was no single frame of mind among our Founders concerning the size of government. Any attempt to say there was is an absolute misrepresentation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

The Commerce Clause. No.

The point of a gun is a simple concept. Government has the power to force you to do what it wants or throw you in jail. That means they will be sending their enforcers to arrest you. These enforcers have guns and will use them to enforce the governments will.

You will be forced to comply at the point of a gun.

Understand now?

neoconservatives a paranoid as hell. willingness to fantasize to this degree, or samurai's "you'll see" put the case in point. not deserving of an ounce of credibility...

Well, if resources are going to go to the IRS to police this bill. And states and militia are redirecting resources to fight feds in DC. What about those forces watching the border? If Mexican helicopters are already crossing over into the US, ranchers are found shot to death by trespassers, and Houston officers are being shot to death by illegal immigrants; whose guns are going to be in your face when you wake up one day to a home invasion?

This political division and civil battle distracts even more resources and attention AWAY from policing crime, corruption, and border trafficking, that is also connected to the cost of health care. The fraud of public services (in addition to corporate bailouts and abuses of taxes on corporate welfare) is not adequately policed or recovered as it is. If attention was focused there, to get billions in restitution paid back to taxpayers, wouldn't that be a better method of funding than fighting over the constitutionality of federal and tax mandates.

Why not just get the money from sources we AGREE need to be better policed, instead of adding a whole new category of requirements for policing law-abiding citizens?

The IRS and feds should go after the real crooks, not create another class of criminals.
If militia and states are raising an army, it should be for border patrol not a civil war!

 

[Charles Stucker]

Chuck,

Just as today, there was no single frame of mind among our Founders concerning the size of government. Any attempt to say there was is an absolute misrepresentation.

Really? I could have sworn they were all united fighting the largest government on earth to earn the right to write the constitution. How does that make them supporters of big government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

but you could cool it with the size=7 shit, captain. i could understand regular type just as effectively.

Yet you still believe that more government is always better government. If there is no government at all then that statement is true, but once a certain size is reached, more government is worse government. Otherwise every state controlled economy throughout history would perform better than the freer economies with smaller governments. You take as an article of faith that the US has not passed that point, but if you were to read the opinions of the framers of the constitution you might find them extremely wary of such a massive government as we have now. It simply suits your preconceptions to have more socialism and hence you blithely accept more government as better.

Did you understand a single word?
Or are you still a liberal socialist idiot?

No, antagon is not, but you, Charles Stucker, are a corporate fascist. You want the balkanization of the U.S. so that business can more easily work hand in hand in government, taking corporate welfare in return for ignoring the tyrants in power.

Never going to happen, son, never.

 

[Murf76]

but you could cool it with the size=7 shit, captain. i could understand regular type just as effectively.

Yet you still believe that more government is always better government. If there is no government at all then that statement is true, but once a certain size is reached, more government is worse government. Otherwise every state controlled economy throughout history would perform better than the freer economies with smaller governments. You take as an article of faith that the US has not passed that point, but if you were to read the opinions of the framers of the constitution you might find them extremely wary of such a massive government as we have now. It simply suits your preconceptions to have more socialism and hence you blithely accept more government as better.

Did you understand a single word?
Or are you still a liberal socialist idiot?

No, antagon is not, but you, Charles Stucker, are a corporate fascist. You want the balkanization of the U.S. so that business can more easily work hand in hand in government, taking corporate welfare in return for ignoring the tyrants in power.

Never going to happen, son, never.

Shouldn't you unearth Jeffrey Immelt from beneath Barry's left butt-cheek before you call anybody else a "corporate fascist". Might improve your credibility.

Just sayin'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet you still believe that more government is always better government. If there is no government at all then that statement is true, but once a certain size is reached, more government is worse government. Otherwise every state controlled economy throughout history would perform better than the freer economies with smaller governments. You take as an article of faith that the US has not passed that point, but if you were to read the opinions of the framers of the constitution you might find them extremely wary of such a massive government as we have now. It simply suits your preconceptions to have more socialism and hence you blithely accept more government as better.

Did you understand a single word?
Or are you still a liberal socialist idiot?

No, antagon is not, but you, Charles Stucker, are a corporate fascist. You want the balkanization of the U.S. so that business can more easily work hand in hand in government, taking corporate welfare in return for ignoring the tyrants in power.

Never going to happen, son, never.

Shouldn't you unearth Jeffrey Immelt from beneath Barry's left butt-cheek before you call anybody else a "corporate fascist". Might improve your credibility.

Just sayin'.

Murf, you lecturing on creditibility is like Pretty Boy Floyd lecturing on being a good citizen.