Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[danielpalos]

we don't have a general defense clause, Troll.

The clause about war goes like this:
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

...}

But I would not call this a general warfare clause or defense clause.
That is because constitutional clauses are typically not supposed to be general, but very specific, and defense does not require anything, since it is under emergency powers.
Which are the following:

{...
The United States Constitution explicitly provides some emergency powers:

• Congress may authorize the government to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.
• Congress may authorize the government to suspend consideration of writs of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
• Felony charges may be brought without presentment or grand jury indictment in cases arising "in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."
• A state government may engage in war without Congress's approval if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

...}

our defense clause is Common not General.

Our welfare clause is General and we have an express Commerce Clause.

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment is the PROTECTOR of all our other Amendments. ...without it we become Nazi Germany with Liberals/socialists/Communists controlling ALL our rights!

You have a First Amendment.

The First Amendment is only symbolic, because if you simply are not wealthy enough, then you can't buy enough media access to be heard. It is ultimately only the 2nd amendment that really prevents dictatorships.

 

[danielpalos]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go?

Hey Billy000 - you ever notice how leftist nuts never talk about any limits on government? Why is that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which does not at all extend to things like drugs of weapons, because they are not external invasions or threats, but decisions about how we want to run our society and how we want to live. And all those types of decisions have to be local and never federal.

The power delegated is to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or general warfare.

 

[Rigby5]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go?

Hey Billy000 - you ever notice how leftist nuts never talk about any limits on government? Why is that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which does not at all extend to things like drugs of weapons, because they are not external invasions or threats, but decisions about how we want to run our society and how we want to live. And all those types of decisions have to be local and never federal.

The power delegated is to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or general warfare.

The power delegated to the federal government is only that which is necessary because states can't do it on their own.
That includes things like preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, negotiating treaties, external defense, etc.
The rule of thumb is that if states can do it, then the federal government can not.
General welfare does not at all give federal jurisdiction to override state jurisdiction in any matter.
If states have failed to act and there is a utility for a federal uniformity as far as equality and uniformity, then you might be able to justify federal actions under general welfare even over matters that state could have done themselves, like federal Social Security for example.
But if some state wants to opt out and do it on their own, they have the legal superiority, and there would no legal way to stop them. Any state has the authority at any time to ban FICA withholding from paychecks.
Clearly the constitution denied any superior federal jurisdiction over things like pensions and retirement payments.
So while it is possible to extend over things states could have done, by using the general welfare clause, that extension is very weak, and can not ever over ride any strong state initiative, if they so wish.

 

[Rigby5]

The clause about war goes like this:
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

...}

But I would not call this a general warfare clause or defense clause.
That is because constitutional clauses are typically not supposed to be general, but very specific, and defense does not require anything, since it is under emergency powers.
Which are the following:

{...
The United States Constitution explicitly provides some emergency powers:

• Congress may authorize the government to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.
• Congress may authorize the government to suspend consideration of writs of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
• Felony charges may be brought without presentment or grand jury indictment in cases arising "in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."
• A state government may engage in war without Congress's approval if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

...}

our defense clause is Common not General.

Our welfare clause is General and we have an express Commerce Clause.

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

What used to be the difference between the right and left constantly changes.

For example, gun control was created by the right, in order to allow vigilantes like the KKK to more easily murder and intimidate Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers.
Why the left now supports gun control, I have no idea?
It makes no sense at all, since it means going back to the days of leaders like Dr. MLK Jr. being murdered.

The right used to be fiscally conservative over things like balances budgets and staying out of foreign wars.
But then the right started to use federal spending on the Industrial Military Complex as an open pork barrel.
And we come full circle again, where Hillary was supporting the illegal use of force for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Egypt, Syria, etc.

I prefer going back to more local control, because then it is harder for government to do things that are wrong without even bothering to make any sort of justification. We should end all federal actions that harm people, like the war on drugs, gun control, and the use of military force without congressional approval. States can deal with drugs much better, guns should vary from state to state, and state representatives would have exposed the lack of evidence for WMD in Iraq and prevented the useless war.

 

[danielpalos]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go?

Hey Billy000 - you ever notice how leftist nuts never talk about any limits on government? Why is that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which does not at all extend to things like drugs of weapons, because they are not external invasions or threats, but decisions about how we want to run our society and how we want to live. And all those types of decisions have to be local and never federal.

The power delegated is to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or general warfare.

The power delegated to the federal government is only that which is necessary because states can't do it on their own.
That includes things like preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, negotiating treaties, external defense, etc.
The rule of thumb is that if states can do it, then the federal government can not.
General welfare does not at all give federal jurisdiction to override state jurisdiction in any matter.
If states have failed to act and there is a utility for a federal uniformity as far as equality and uniformity, then you might be able to justify federal actions under general welfare even over matters that state could have done themselves, like federal Social Security for example.
But if some state wants to opt out and do it on their own, they have the legal superiority, and there would no legal way to stop them. Any state has the authority at any time to ban FICA withholding from paychecks.
Clearly the constitution denied any superior federal jurisdiction over things like pensions and retirement payments.
So while it is possible to extend over things states could have done, by using the general welfare clause, that extension is very weak, and can not ever over ride any strong state initiative, if they so wish.

My position is that we should be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

our defense clause is Common not General.

Our welfare clause is General and we have an express Commerce Clause.

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

What used to be the difference between the right and left constantly changes.

For example, gun control was created by the right, in order to allow vigilantes like the KKK to more easily murder and intimidate Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers.
Why the left now supports gun control, I have no idea?
It makes no sense at all, since it means going back to the days of leaders like Dr. MLK Jr. being murdered.

The right used to be fiscally conservative over things like balances budgets and staying out of foreign wars.
But then the right started to use federal spending on the Industrial Military Complex as an open pork barrel.
And we come full circle again, where Hillary was supporting the illegal use of force for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Egypt, Syria, etc.

I prefer going back to more local control, because then it is harder for government to do things that are wrong without even bothering to make any sort of justification. We should end all federal actions that harm people, like the war on drugs, gun control, and the use of military force without congressional approval. States can deal with drugs much better, guns should vary from state to state, and state representatives would have exposed the lack of evidence for WMD in Iraq and prevented the useless war.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[22lcidw]

The clause about war goes like this:
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

...}

But I would not call this a general warfare clause or defense clause.
That is because constitutional clauses are typically not supposed to be general, but very specific, and defense does not require anything, since it is under emergency powers.
Which are the following:

{...
The United States Constitution explicitly provides some emergency powers:

• Congress may authorize the government to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.
• Congress may authorize the government to suspend consideration of writs of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
• Felony charges may be brought without presentment or grand jury indictment in cases arising "in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."
• A state government may engage in war without Congress's approval if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

...}

our defense clause is Common not General.

Our welfare clause is General and we have an express Commerce Clause.

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

Blaming the poor! Its having "a war on poverty" for over 50 years and still having poverty that is the issue!

 

[Rigby5]

Hey Billy000 - you ever notice how leftist nuts never talk about any limits on government? Why is that?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which does not at all extend to things like drugs of weapons, because they are not external invasions or threats, but decisions about how we want to run our society and how we want to live. And all those types of decisions have to be local and never federal.

The power delegated is to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or general warfare.

The power delegated to the federal government is only that which is necessary because states can't do it on their own.
That includes things like preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, negotiating treaties, external defense, etc.
The rule of thumb is that if states can do it, then the federal government can not.
General welfare does not at all give federal jurisdiction to override state jurisdiction in any matter.
If states have failed to act and there is a utility for a federal uniformity as far as equality and uniformity, then you might be able to justify federal actions under general welfare even over matters that state could have done themselves, like federal Social Security for example.
But if some state wants to opt out and do it on their own, they have the legal superiority, and there would no legal way to stop them. Any state has the authority at any time to ban FICA withholding from paychecks.
Clearly the constitution denied any superior federal jurisdiction over things like pensions and retirement payments.
So while it is possible to extend over things states could have done, by using the general welfare clause, that extension is very weak, and can not ever over ride any strong state initiative, if they so wish.

My position is that we should be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I agree completely.
It would be cheaper than welfare or dealing with crime, if we just guaranteed employment for everyone who wants to work.
Does not even matter if the employment produces anything. Just keeps people out of trouble and with a sense of self worth.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

What used to be the difference between the right and left constantly changes.

For example, gun control was created by the right, in order to allow vigilantes like the KKK to more easily murder and intimidate Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers.
Why the left now supports gun control, I have no idea?
It makes no sense at all, since it means going back to the days of leaders like Dr. MLK Jr. being murdered.

The right used to be fiscally conservative over things like balances budgets and staying out of foreign wars.
But then the right started to use federal spending on the Industrial Military Complex as an open pork barrel.
And we come full circle again, where Hillary was supporting the illegal use of force for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Egypt, Syria, etc.

I prefer going back to more local control, because then it is harder for government to do things that are wrong without even bothering to make any sort of justification. We should end all federal actions that harm people, like the war on drugs, gun control, and the use of military force without congressional approval. States can deal with drugs much better, guns should vary from state to state, and state representatives would have exposed the lack of evidence for WMD in Iraq and prevented the useless war.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The reason we have a security problem is that the police have been created and are so insulated from the people and law, that they have become a danger themselves. It would be better if we went back to having no police and the citizens armed.

 

[P@triot]

I have read our Constitution.

Uh...no you haven’t sparky. I proved that already. You’re lying through your teeth.

 

[P@triot]

After gun control failed (as all rationale and logical people knew it would), the progressive nitwits are now going after knives. The left won’t be happy until they can control everything in a totalitarian state.

Walmart steps up 'knife control' in Britain

 

[pismoe]

SCREW Drivers are next !!

 

[danielpalos]

our defense clause is Common not General.

Our welfare clause is General and we have an express Commerce Clause.

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

Blaming the poor! Its having "a war on poverty" for over 50 years and still having poverty that is the issue!

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse. why are we subsidizing that, more? more lucrative.

 

[danielpalos]

I have read our Constitution.

Uh...no you haven’t sparky. I proved that already. You’re lying through your teeth.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; that means, You are the biggest hypocrite and liar.

 

[danielpalos]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Which does not at all extend to things like drugs of weapons, because they are not external invasions or threats, but decisions about how we want to run our society and how we want to live. And all those types of decisions have to be local and never federal.

The power delegated is to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or general warfare.

The power delegated to the federal government is only that which is necessary because states can't do it on their own.
That includes things like preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, negotiating treaties, external defense, etc.
The rule of thumb is that if states can do it, then the federal government can not.
General welfare does not at all give federal jurisdiction to override state jurisdiction in any matter.
If states have failed to act and there is a utility for a federal uniformity as far as equality and uniformity, then you might be able to justify federal actions under general welfare even over matters that state could have done themselves, like federal Social Security for example.
But if some state wants to opt out and do it on their own, they have the legal superiority, and there would no legal way to stop them. Any state has the authority at any time to ban FICA withholding from paychecks.
Clearly the constitution denied any superior federal jurisdiction over things like pensions and retirement payments.
So while it is possible to extend over things states could have done, by using the general welfare clause, that extension is very weak, and can not ever over ride any strong state initiative, if they so wish.

My position is that we should be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I agree completely.
It would be cheaper than welfare or dealing with crime, if we just guaranteed employment for everyone who wants to work.
Does not even matter if the employment produces anything. Just keeps people out of trouble and with a sense of self worth.

The right wing refuses to to Believe, only Capital must circulate under Capitalism, not fools or horses.

 

[danielpalos]

After gun control failed (as all rationale and logical people knew it would), the progressive nitwits are now going after knives. The left won’t be happy until they can control everything in a totalitarian state.

Walmart steps up 'knife control' in Britain

Quarterstaffs are better!

 

[P@triot]

i resort to the fewest fallacies;

I resort to no fallacies. I win.

 

[danielpalos]

i resort to the fewest fallacies;

I resort to no fallacies. I win.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually there is no clause in the Constituation about common defense, that is just briefly mentioned in the preamble.

{...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
...}

I would not say the preamble could be used in a court of law in order to justify something.

I have read our Constitution.

Here are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see, the term "gerneral" does not need to be a quote but a description of generic duties and means.

Although whenever I get into a constitutional discussion, it always hits me that the federal War on Drugs, federal gun control, executive undeclared wars, etc., are totally illegal.

yet, the right wing prefers to blame the Poor instead of abolish non-express powers.

Blaming the poor! Its having "a war on poverty" for over 50 years and still having poverty that is the issue!

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse. why are we subsidizing that, more? more lucrative.

Agreed. All these things are badly done, I think mostly because they are not being done at the local or state level, where these problems could be helped. The more distant the level of government, the more likely their attempts to change things will fail or make things worse. And that is besides violating the constitution, which delegated those powers locally.