Democrat politicians set to rob the public to pay reperations to slaves.

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Damn child, you just keep proving that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution, even though every damn one of them swear to protect and defend it. The further we get from the ratification the more bastardized it becomes. That's what regressives and commies get ya.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

Why don't you do that?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Damn child, you just keep proving that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution, even though every damn one of them swear to protect and defend it. The further we get from the ratification the more bastardized it becomes. That's what regressives and commies get ya.

.

Trump loves lawyers

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Damn child, you just keep proving that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution, even though every damn one of them swear to protect and defend it. The further we get from the ratification the more bastardized it becomes. That's what regressives and commies get ya.

.

So you want to go back to slavery days

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Commies

Rural Americans: Disabled or just Desperate? | Project E3

Rural Americans experienced the most rapid increase in disability rates, with as many as one-third of working-age adults living on monthly disability checks

projecte3.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of Jim crow

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of gender discrimination.

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Damn child, you just keep proving that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution, even though every damn one of them swear to protect and defend it. The further we get from the ratification the more bastardized it becomes. That's what regressives and commies get ya.

.

So you want to go back to slavery days

I believe there are amendments that addresses that. I'm surprised a wise ass commie like you wouldn't know that.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

Why don't you do that?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant definitions. That would be you.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted

Preamble. Annotations about the Preamble

www.law.cornell.edu

ROFLMAO, your point? Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Tell me what you think it says.

.

From about 1905 until about 1937, the Supreme Court used a narrow version of the Commerce Clause. However, beginning with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. Most importantly, the Supreme Court held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) demonstrated the Court's willingness to give an enequivocally broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Recognizing the development of a dynamic and integrated national economy, the Court employed a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, reasoning the even local activity will likely affect the larger interstate commercial economic scheme

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Damn child, you just keep proving that lawyers are the greatest threat to the Constitution, even though every damn one of them swear to protect and defend it. The further we get from the ratification the more bastardized it becomes. That's what regressives and commies get ya.

.

So you want to go back to slavery days

I believe there are amendments that addresses that. I'm surprised a wise ass commie like you wouldn't know that.

.

Brown v. Board of Education: Summary, Ruling & Impact | HISTORY

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional.

www.history.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

The power of scotus comes from the Constitution

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

judicial review

www.law.cornell.edu

Judicial Review
Primary tabs
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.

The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

Wow, unelected lawyers bestowed more power on themselves, who'd a thunk.

.

Were the definitions of promote and provide different in 1787?

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of Jim crow

Any more factoids that prove my point?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Provide and promote sound pretty similar

How about providing definitions from 1787 when the document was written. Modern dictionaries are useless when determining original intent. Historical documents have to be viewed in historical context. But who am I kidding, you commies have never been concerned with historical accuracy.

.

I posted scotus interpretation

And, a SCOTUS ruling only stands till the next one. You should pick up a copy of "Men in Black", but I doubt you'd understand it. You commies seem to have difficulty with sound reasoning.

.

Scotus changed their interpretation of gender discrimination.

Did they, or did the law change?

.