Economics 101

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

 

[edthecynic]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

 

[Markle]

The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Providing retirement plans, food, or healthcare is not one of those powers. Therefore, they are all 100% illegal.

BULLSHIT!
It is in the very first enumerated power!

"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"

Hey stupid.....the "General Welfare" is in regards to their 18 enumerated powers. The founders didn't feel the necessity to write a 2,000 page document (like Obamacare) because back then liberalism didn't exist so people actually had integrity. They didn't want to name each and every item under the 18 enumerated powers. And since the federal government was already explicitly restricted to just those 18 enumerated powers, they granted them broad powers within each of those - hence the "general welfare". Perhaps you might want to educate yourself just a smidge before commenting and embarrassing yourself?

Here is none other than Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch 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, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

I never cease to marvel at your ignorance about the U.S. Constitution and your own government. I included the exact dates of the quotes so you can research them for yourself too junior.

Nothing in those two quotes precludes SS or health care.
Try again.

Actually they do. How stupid do you feel right now? The federal governments powers are explicitly restricted to the 18 enumerated powers and nothing more. Since those powers don't include healthcare, retirement, feeding the people, etc. those items are completely unconstitutional.

I don't blame you though brother. I know you've been duped by liberals and trained to ignore reality in favor of ideology.

So how did Jefferson buy the Louisiana Territory? Where in the Constitution is that found?

Probably the same way Alaska was bought from Russia.

 

[P@triot]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

 

[P@triot]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

 

[edthecynic]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

 

[P@triot]

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

 

[edthecynic]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

Bullshit!

 

[P@triot]

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

Bullshit!

Well there is an intelligent response.... That's what a liberal yells when the facts leave them nothing left to dispute and they can't yell "racist".

Try doing some homework just once in your lazy life Eddy. The founders were all very clear on this. Even an idiot like Hamilton who was looking to strengthen the federal government. You cannot find one founding father who ever stated that the federal governments powers go beyond the U.S. Constitution itself.

Once again....I would like to thank you for blindly walking right into that one. You did more to prove my point by mentioning Federalist 84 than anything else. Let a liberal talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position (that's what happens though when positions are built on irrational emotion rather than facts).

 

[edthecynic]

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

 

[P@triot]

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

And who said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?

 

[Rshermr]

They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

Bullshit!

Well there is an intelligent response.... That's what a liberal yells when the facts leave them nothing left to dispute and they can't yell "racist".

Try doing some homework just once in your lazy life Eddy. The founders were all very clear on this. Even an idiot like Hamilton who was looking to strengthen the federal government. You cannot find one founding father who ever stated that the federal governments powers go beyond the U.S. Constitution itself.

Once again....I would like to thank you for blindly walking right into that one. You did more to prove my point by mentioning Federalist 84 than anything else. Let a liberal talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position (that's what happens though when positions are built on irrational emotion rather than facts).

Actually, very intelligent. That is, that what you post is bullshit. Because as a tea party poster, what can one suggest.

So, is it possible for you to concisely say what it is that you believe??? Is it that you believe there are only 18 powers allowed by the constitution? Is it that you do not believe anyone out there who disagrees with you and has expertise? Is it simply that you are a con troll and incapable of rational discussion?
Is it simply that what you say is bullshit?

 

[P@triot]

Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

Bullshit!

Well there is an intelligent response.... That's what a liberal yells when the facts leave them nothing left to dispute and they can't yell "racist".

Try doing some homework just once in your lazy life Eddy. The founders were all very clear on this. Even an idiot like Hamilton who was looking to strengthen the federal government. You cannot find one founding father who ever stated that the federal governments powers go beyond the U.S. Constitution itself.

Once again....I would like to thank you for blindly walking right into that one. You did more to prove my point by mentioning Federalist 84 than anything else. Let a liberal talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position (that's what happens though when positions are built on irrational emotion rather than facts).

Actually, very intelligent. That is, that what you post is bullshit. Because as a tea party poster, what can one suggest.

So, is it possible for you to concisely say what it is that you believe??? Is it that you believe there are only 18 powers allowed by the constitution? Is it that you do not believe anyone out there who disagrees with you and has expertise? Is it simply that you are a con troll and incapable of rational discussion?
Is it simply that what you say is bullshit?

You know what I say? Come back and talk to me when your literacy improves ten-fold. I seriously can't even make out what you're trying to say there.

The only thing I can address is your incoherent ramblings about "disagreements". It's a nonsensical position. It's like saying "can't someone have their own opinion about whether the sun actually exists or not". Um...no. Not they can't. It's a fact that the sun exists. And it's a fact that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document that says exactly what it says. There is nothing "implied". There is nothing to "interpret". It is a legal document, written in black and white. There is no matter of "opinion" on it. There is only the facts (conservatives acceptance of it) and the attempt to warp and pervert it for personal gain (liberals take on it).

 

[edthecynic]

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

And who said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?

YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.

 

[Rshermr]

As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it proves what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.

Bullshit!

Well there is an intelligent response.... That's what a liberal yells when the facts leave them nothing left to dispute and they can't yell "racist".

Try doing some homework just once in your lazy life Eddy. The founders were all very clear on this. Even an idiot like Hamilton who was looking to strengthen the federal government. You cannot find one founding father who ever stated that the federal governments powers go beyond the U.S. Constitution itself.

Once again....I would like to thank you for blindly walking right into that one. You did more to prove my point by mentioning Federalist 84 than anything else. Let a liberal talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position (that's what happens though when positions are built on irrational emotion rather than facts).

Actually, very intelligent. That is, that what you post is bullshit. Because as a tea party poster, what can one suggest.

So, is it possible for you to concisely say what it is that you believe??? Is it that you believe there are only 18 powers allowed by the constitution? Is it that you do not believe anyone out there who disagrees with you and has expertise? Is it simply that you are a con troll and incapable of rational discussion?
Is it simply that what you say is bullshit?

You know what I say? Come back and talk to me when your literacy improves ten-fold. I seriously can't even make out what you're trying to say there.

The only thing I can address is your incoherent ramblings about "disagreements". It's a nonsensical position. It's like saying "can't someone have their own opinion about whether the sun actually exists or not". Um...no. Not they can't. It's a fact that the sun exists. And it's a fact that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document that says exactly what it says. There is nothing "implied". There is nothing to "interpret". It is a legal document, written in black and white. There is no matter of "opinion" on it. There is only the facts (conservatives acceptance of it) and the attempt to warp and pervert it for personal gain (liberals take on it).

The only thing I can address is your incoherent ramblings about "disagreements".
I just re read my post. It is very easy to understand. No one but you is at blame for being incapable of understanding english. Perhaps a remedial english class would help you, dipshit.

It's a nonsensical position. It's like saying "can't someone have their own opinion about whether the sun actually exists or not". Um...no. Not they can't. It's a fact that the sun exists.
What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying? You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.

And it's a fact that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document that says exactly what it says.
Uh, did you think that was a profound post, dipshit. There are lots of legal documents that are interpreted differently by different people. the Constitution is one of those things. And your interpretation, that of a tea party nut case, is not an interpretation that means a thing. Because you are a con troll.

There is nothing "implied". There is nothing to "interpret". It is a legal document, written in black and white. There is no matter of "opinion" on it.
Sorry, it is very much subject to interpretation. By supreme court justices. Nice try, but you loose. Implied powers do indeed exist and are valid based on the interpretation of the supreme court. Only con trolls and tea party nut cases, like you, do not understand. Again, sorry but you loose.

As soon as you get an education making you a constitutional expert let me know. Otherwise, you are just posting drivel.

 

[P@triot]

Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...

Communism Still Persists

 

[Rshermr]

Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...

[/QUOTE]
Communism Still Persists
So does Polio. Communism is a subject only because con trolls like Patriot pushes the subject. Here is a fact check on a Republican Congressman who agrees with Patriot.

"Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party
West is using guilty by association here, and has failed to prove that any member of Congress is a communist. Pants on Fire!"
None

Poor ignorant con trolls have to lie a lot to make their crazy points. Next they will be warning us about zombies still persisting. Dip shits.

 

[Rshermr]

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

And who said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?

YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.
Patriot is just another con troll.

 

[P@triot]

What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying? You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.

My God your English is atrocious. What country do you live in?

Your atrocious English explains why you can't follow a simple conversation. What do I think exists? The U.S. Constitution, stupid. In fact - I know it exists.