Happy 4th of July......Dont forget to thank a Liberal

[Statistikhengst]

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

That is simply ignorant.

Liberalism in a nutshell.

Yes, indeed, Liberalism is the ability to actually understand and discern the meaning of the US Constitution. Were Conservatives like you able to rub at least two brain cells together, you would want to try it as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet, they made a serious attempt to limit it's size. Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

There are no limits on the "size" of the government. Your libertarian interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments are not supported by the legislature or by the courts

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Not what you think they mean:

The [10th A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IVid.140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. [McCulloch v. Maryland (1819))]

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are no limits on the "size" of the government. Your libertarian interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments are not supported by the legislature or by the courts

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

The states are at liberty to enact law and measures as they see fit, provided such measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, do not violate the civil liberties of American citizens residing in the states, do not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, and do not interfere with acts of Congress or the rulings of Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958), US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)).

 

[rightwinger]

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

That is simply ignorant.

It is true and has been upheld by the courts

 

[Listening]

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

That is simply ignorant.

It is true and has been upheld by the courts

That you are ignorant is indeed true.

What courts moron ?

If you are not familiar with the whole "switch in time that save nine", then educate yourself. You might find it under Roosevelts Court Packing Scheme which was a blatant attempt to highjack what was supposed to be an independent judiciary.

Roosevelt was an asshole. If I could, I'd dig his ass up, shoot it, burn it and leave the rest for the ants.

Why did Roosevelt go after the court....because they were knocking down his New Deal legislation at every turn.

Up until that time, it was UNDERSTOOD how this system worked.

Since then, it has been all downhill for conservatives.

So, which court is it... ?

 

[Listening]

There are no limits on the "size" of the government. Your libertarian interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments are not supported by the legislature or by the courts

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Not what you think they mean:

The [10th A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IVid.140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. [McCulloch v. Maryland (1819))]

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

And the argument has always been over "granted powers". I've never seen where the power to regulate health care was "granted" to the federal government. And spare me the General Welfare clause bullshit. If that were what libs want it to be, the whole premise of the argument that took place over the Constitution would never have taken place. Everyone knew the Federal Government had limited and defined powers.......

That never stopped the libs from looking for a way around it.

 

[Listening]

Yes, Freedom isn't so FREE under the subversive liberals...Enjoy!

Well hell no, all those Teatards carrying guns nowadays, who the hell is safe.

And what they never seem to understand is we need more laws and more rules because we have more people living much closer together and more dependent on one another. The actions of one person has far more impact on others than anytime in our history.

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.

Now, we have many states with more than that.

Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?

Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?

Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?

So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.

Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.

Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

 

[regent]

Well hell no, all those Teatards carrying guns nowadays, who the hell is safe.

And what they never seem to understand is we need more laws and more rules because we have more people living much closer together and more dependent on one another. The actions of one person has far more impact on others than anytime in our history.

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.

Now, we have many states with more than that.

Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?

Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?

Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?

So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.

Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.

Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

So was that sign erected by a local government or the national government?

 

[Flopper]

Well hell no, all those Teatards carrying guns nowadays, who the hell is safe.

And what they never seem to understand is we need more laws and more rules because we have more people living much closer together and more dependent on one another. The actions of one person has far more impact on others than anytime in our history.

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.

Now, we have many states with more than that.

Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?

Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?

Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?

So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.

Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.

Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

Because it's 2014, not 1776.

 

[Listening]

And what they never seem to understand is we need more laws and more rules because we have more people living much closer together and more dependent on one another. The actions of one person has far more impact on others than anytime in our history.

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.

Now, we have many states with more than that.

Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?

Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?

Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?

So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.

Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.

Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

Because it's 2014, not 1776.

And what question were you answering...and where is the "flop" behind the answer ?

In 1787 (fixed that one for you)....we had smart people in D.C. (Philly).

In 2014, we have a bunch of greedy, self-centered, unprincipled, assholes in D.C. (GOP and Democrats).

Or was there another point you failed to make ?

 

[kaz]

There are no limits on the "size" of the government. Your libertarian interpretations of the 9th and 10th amendments are not supported by the legislature or by the courts

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Not what you think they mean:

The [10th A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IVid.140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. [McCulloch v. Maryland (1819))]

United States v. Darby | LII / Legal Information Institute

What you just posted is circular. Can you read?

I think the 10th says that if the Constitution doesn't grant an authority to the Federal government, that authority is prohibited to the Federal government. And the 9th says that just because a right isn't spelled out doesn't make it less important than a right that is.

I think that because it's what they say.

You just posted that the 9th and 10th do not prohibit the Federal government from using the authorities that are granted. No shit Dick Tracey, your usual contentless contribution to a discussion.

 

[kaz]

Evasion. What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

The states are at liberty to enact law and measures as they see fit, provided such measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, do not violate the civil liberties of American citizens residing in the states, do not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, and do not interfere with acts of Congress or the rulings of Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958), US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)).

Riddle me this, Batman. When a Federal authority is based on case law and it not traceable to the Constitution itself, then what is that authority based on? The people did not grant it, they granted what was in the Constitution, then specifically said we are granting no more unless it is enacted by a set formula, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

If the Federal courts rule based on their own rulings that the Federal government has an authority, that is the Federal government and not the people granting the authority. And that ... is a crime against the people.

 

[kaz]

Whatever the federal government does not do is left to the states

That is simply ignorant.

It is true and has been upheld by the courts

The courts are your Politburo, aren't they rw?

 

[Listening]

That is simply ignorant.

It is true and has been upheld by the courts

The courts are your Politburo, aren't they rw?

It is the fabric of the liberal agenda.

Why amend the constitution (you know get all those people who'se lives it affects to be engaged in the process), when you can get 5 black robbed individuals to do your bidding for you ?

Riddle me this, Batman. When a Federal authority is based on case law and it not traceable to the Constitution itself, then what is that authority based on? The people did not grant it, they granted what was in the Constitution, then specifically said we are granting no more unless it is enacted by a set formula, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

If the Federal courts rule based on their own rulings that the Federal government has an authority, that is the Federal government and not the people granting the authority. And that ... is a crime against the people.

And hence the saying...the rule of men (or women as the case may be).

Read the decision in Roe v. Wade. It is simply the worst thing ever.

In about the third paragraph it says the courts are not there to do social engineering....and then they do just that.

Harry Blackmunn was asking for medical data to help in his decision. Medical Data ? He was a doctor ? No...he's a judge and he's supposed to judge based on law....not medicine.

Sad and sick.

The man should be jailed.

 

[Listening]

Thank a liberal ?

For violating private property principles.

Yes...I'll thank them for that....with the toe of my boot.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Flopper]

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.

Now, we have many states with more than that.

Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?

Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?

Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?

So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.

Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.

Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

Because it's 2014, not 1776.

And what question were you answering...and where is the "flop" behind the answer ?

In 1787 (fixed that one for you)....we had smart people in D.C. (Philly).

In 2014, we have a bunch of greedy, self-centered, unprincipled, assholes in D.C. (GOP and Democrats).

Or was there another point you failed to make ?

Sorry, I accidentally posted the reply before I stated my point. As I understand your post, you believe almost all government spending and law making should be done at the local or the state level, not federal. The constitution should be taken literally.

It would seem then that the United States would function more like the Commonwealth of Nations but with a common constitution. Each state would be making it's own decisions concerning civil rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. A literal interpretation of the constitution would change National parks and monuments into states parks. State boarders and militias would be become much important than they are today because federal drug laws and child pornography laws would become state laws. Central banking and federal banking laws, security exchange regulations would be left to the states.

I suspect few people not even strong conservatives would approve of this new Un-united States.

 

[Listening]

Because it's 2014, not 1776.

And what question were you answering...and where is the "flop" behind the answer ?

In 1787 (fixed that one for you)....we had smart people in D.C. (Philly).

In 2014, we have a bunch of greedy, self-centered, unprincipled, assholes in D.C. (GOP and Democrats).

Or was there another point you failed to make ?

Sorry, I accidentally posted the reply before I stated my point. As I understand your post, you believe almost all government spending and law making should be done at the local or the state level, not federal. The constitution should be taken literally.

It would seem then that the United States would function more like the Commonwealth of Nations but with a common constitution. Each state would be making it's own decisions concerning civil rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. A literal interpretation of the constitution would change National parks and monuments into states parks. State boarders and militias would be become much important than they are today because federal drug laws and child pornography laws would become state laws. Central banking and federal banking laws, security exchange regulations would be left to the states.

I suspect few people not even strong conservatives would approve of this new Un-united States.

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

 

[Crystalclear]

And what they never seem to understand is we need more laws and more rules because we have more people living much closer together and more dependent on one another. The actions of one person has far more impact on others than anytime in our history.

When the country was formed, there were 6,000,000 people living in it.



Now, we have many states with more than that.



Why is it that the liberals don't understand that this country was set up so that Florida could spend more money on books than Michigan (if Michigan wanted to spend it's money on roads) ?



Why does Washington D.C. have to dictate everything ?



Are they smarter than the states (hint: they are elected by the states) ?



So, if laws are required, it is better for them be passed at the local level.



Don't like what's going on where you live.....move.



Now, people have to contemplate leaving the U.S. to get away from the liberty destroying efforts of people like Obama.

Because it's 2014, not 1776.

Why is that a good reason for federalisation?

 

[Listening]

Why is that a good reason for federalisation?

The were things that were federalized for a good reason.

There were many that were not...for good reasons.


The libs don't get it.