Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just make an assumption? What I suggest is you read the commerce clause of the constitution to understand what I wrote but then again that might pose a problem because you have made the statement that you don't feel the need to to be bound by it.
I've read it, thanks. Its not that helpful without considering how the USSC has interpreted it. Have you read the commerce clause line of cases?
However, I would encourage you to take a look at it to understand that as it applies to interstate commerce, I made it quite clear what the Govt. as the power to do and to regulate. If you took that to mean no money to fund this then obviously you didn't read it or understand it.
I'm aware of what the government can do under the commerce clause. However, you stated that the government can't fund it due to "public good" issues which is categorically incorrect.
Who owns it is, frankly, irrelevant since its not a profit making venture. You'd be in favor of the US government throwing money down a hole that is profiting private investors instead of just performing a service? Thats absurd.
Thats a broad generalization. I don't think progressives are trying to reform medicare, nor are they trying to reform social security whereas "conservatives" want to privatize both.
And? I can find quotes by Hitler that jives with conservatism, that doesn't mean that republicans are somehow nazis. Making asinine comparisons like that only shows the blind ideology that influences your core beliefs.
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible- Socialist Party USA
And? If you don't know the difference between this and progressive Democrats, you need to educate yourself.
You really should take some time to read the constitution Nik then you would realize that the beauty of it lay in the ability to change it. Your inability to see outside whatever you hear and wahtever talking points you get are showing very clearly in this thread Nik and again it would serve you well to actually read , then you would understand what my posting really meant.
Oy. Spare me the condescending bullshit. I've read the US Constitution as well as the EU Constitution, the SA Constitution, the Australian Constitution, and others. I am well aware of the US Constitution and what it says. It, if followed to the letter, would mean that you would be significantly worse off today.
But go ahead. Keep blindly worshiping the views of old dead white men who owned slaves. I mean just because the Constitution said blacks were 3/5ths of a person doesn't mean theres any reason to doubt it, right?
Oh, and as for the beauty of the constitution being that it can be changed, thats asinine. Its only been changed a handful of times in history. The beauty of it is that they set up an original, and pretty decent, system of government. But hey, we know more now than they did 250 years ago. Its not actually that great anymore. Although they did leave it vague enough for us to interpret the **** out of it, which is helpful.
But go ahead. Keep saying that the government shouldn't act in the public good cause the constitution doesn't say it can. And I'll keep laughing at you
The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.
Im very well aware of the 3/5ths compromise and it's implications and if you were as well read as you said you were then you would have known this as well. You laughing at me is the last of my worry's want to know why? because people like you I actually pity because your so lacking in a general understanding of our form of Govt. that it's you who are often laughed at when you post the nonsense you do that is often repeated and found from just about any pamphlet that every progressive group hands out. I am extremely well aware cases having dealth with the commerce clause
Among the Several States .--Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government
Again if you were not so blinded by partisanship and were able to actually comprehend what you were reading then you would have seen that even the SCOTUS has through the years ruled that interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal Govt. and as roads carry interstate commerce per my postings they can also be regulated. However, this does not give congress the power to regulatewithin the states roads that do not have any connection to interstate commerce or rail for that matter. Perhaps they helps clear it up for you as you seem so intent to not understand what your reading.
United States v. Butler.
T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Â… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. Â… But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. Â… [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national,
as distinguished from local, welfare.
The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15
So again I ask you where exactly do you find "public good" in the constitution?
The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good. Public Good while a theory and a goal of Govt. it is not something that gives Govt. broad powers to legislate. Had you a little knowledge of your nation then you would have been able to understand this concept.
I will end on this note and that is the Amendment process. if you wish to change the constitution as you seem to be such a deep scholar of the constitution , then my suggesting this should not come as such a surprise. I'm very well aware what a progressive democrat is and the difference between a traditional democrat and a progressive one is. In fact , I submit that many of those that call themselves progressives have zero clue of exactly what that means as they often call themselves liberals as well which is laughable. considering the fact that a traditional liberal would never want Govt. to controls that a so called progressive advocates. So again, young man I suggest you pick up a history book and not a social studies book to have a clue as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Of course i'd be happy to kep educating you if you so desire.
but despite his obvious bias he still reported what exactly happened. I would not have posted this if I thought he was extrapolating, I know him better than that. 
