I thought that the military was protecting our freedoms

[pegwinn]

IMO, "Congress shall make no laws .... " does not preclude the states from doing so.

You are correct. I should have mentioned that in my response. It is a court battle waiting to happen when a state attempts to exercise it's rights against what people see as a right guaranteed by the first ten amendments.

So far as I know, only the second amendment is safe from state interference. We've seen how well that works out no?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Our freedoms are jeopardized by agencies like the Supreme Court who take away Constitutional rights like the first amendment's right to peacably assemble.

If we engage in war and our soldiers are killing to defend our freedoms as is the contention of some on this board, and if theaters like Vietnam and Iraq are necessary for us to remain a free society...then why is the Supreme Court allowed to take away the first amendment?

If our military was truly defending our freedom, the Bush administration and all of their appointees would be rounded up and detained in Gitmo.

Do you understand now? Or do you need to revert back to second grade taunts again?

So you did not advocate a military Coup in this statement? Here let me help you by coloring the relevant sentence.

 

[jillian]

You are correct. I should have mentioned that in my response. It is a court battle waiting to happen when a state attempts to exercise it's rights against what people see as a right guaranteed by the first ten amendments.

So far as I know, only the second amendment is safe from state interference. We've seen how well that works out no?

Actually, that's not quite right. States can grant their citizens greater protections than the Federal Constitution, but not fewer.

 

[pegwinn]

Actually, that's not quite right. States can grant their citizens greater protections than the Federal Constitution, but not fewer.

I will assume you are correct because it makes sense. How does that count for the abuses of the second amendment?

Might need a new thread...... popular topic........

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will assume you are correct because it makes sense. How does that count for the abuses of the second amendment?

Might need a new thread...... popular topic........

The Federal Government supercedes any State Government and after the Civil War the Bill of Rights was considered applicable at the State level, prior to the Civil War it was not. Thus she is right.

The problem is that the Federal Government abuses the article that gives it authority by stretching the commerce clause to cover any and everything, negating the clear intent that the Federal Government MUST have power granted it by the people through the States. And Jillian thinks the "general welfare" term in that article grants the Federal Government even GREATER power, in effect no limits at all.

 

[Annie]

The Federal Government supercedes any State Government and after the Civil War the Bill of Rights was considered applicable at the State level, prior to the Civil War it was not. Thus she is right.

The problem is that the Federal Government abuses the article that gives it authority by stretching the commerce clause to cover any and everything, negating the clear intent that the Federal Government MUST have power granted it by the people through the States. And Jillian thinks the "general welfare" term in that article grants the Federal Government even GREATER power, in effect no limits at all.

I disagree. What the Civil War settled was whether or not states could withdraw from the Union, not whether or not there was a federalist system. The Constitution is Supreme Law, not the Federal Government itself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree. What the Civil War settled was whether or not states could withdraw from the Union, not whether or not there was a federalist system. The Constitution is Supreme Law, not the Federal Government itself.

And you would be wrong. The 14 th amendment started the ball rolling and as in Government will do, and we warned about by the founding fathers , it has seized more and more power.

Illegally I might add. The Commerce clause is used to justify any and every thing, INCLUDING the claim that Education is a Federal power. There is no intra State Commerce any more, every facet of commerce is now controlled by the Federal Government by claiming the commerce clause covers it if there is any chance any thing was ever possibly, maybe involved in some cross state transaction.

If you produce items IN your State and only sell them IN your State you still get hit, if you ship by any carrier that ever does any out of state business or if any thing, any tool any material, any thing you have in your business come from out of State.

Paper, pens, filing cabinets, it doesn't matter, the Federal Government claims if you buy them and then use them in your business that makes you involved in your further business in interstate trade. That IS NOT the intent or purpose of the Commerce clause.

 

[Annie]

And you would be wrong. The 14 th amendment started the ball rolling and as in Government will do, and we warned about by the founding fathers , it has seized more and more power.

Illegally I might add. The Commerce clause is used to justify any and every thing, INCLUDING the claim that Education is a Federal power. There is no intra State Commerce any more, every facet of commerce is now controlled by the Federal Government by claiming the commerce clause covers it if there is any chance any thing was ever possibly, maybe involved in some cross state transaction.

If you produce items IN your State and only sell them IN your State you still get hit, if you ship by any carrier that ever does any out of state business or if any thing, any tool any material, any thing you have in your business come from out of State.

Paper, pens, filing cabinets, it doesn't matter, the Federal Government claims if you buy them and then use them in your business that makes you involved in your further business in interstate trade. That IS NOT the intent or purpose of the Commerce clause.

If it's 'constitutional' it's not illegal. I maintain that the constitution does NOT give the powers or limitations you are maintaining. The commerce clause refers to the 'businesses' whose business dealings cross state lines. When that occurs, it's federal. It doesn't matter if that 'interstate business is doing business within the state of it's headquarters or not. If the business is only within the state, then it's state regulated. It doesn't become and interstate business because a customer lives in another state. It's always been that way.

 

[Taomon]

Interesting how each side of a debate chooses to either interpret the constitution to mean what it wants or interpret it literally. Since the left mostly seems to use interpretation, is it a flip flop when it suits them to go with the literal wording?

EX: In this case the amendment states that "Congress shall make no law......right of the people peaceably to assemble....... petition....". The literal interpretation is that it is unconstitutional to limit protests or even to regulate them, unless the protest violated the "Peaceably" provision. I agree with that.

EX: But, the same first amendment also states that Congress shall make no law...... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A literalist understands that you can pray in schools since laws are made by Congress and Congress is specifically enjoined to NOT make any law on the subject. Yet, because it suits them, those on the left choose the interpretive style and decided that any religious expression on or by a .gov entitity be it person or property means they are an extension of "congress". I disagree with that.

So for Taomon, which is right for all the time?

Literal.

But regarding prayer in school, that should be left up to the states. People in Kansas have a different sensibility than people in MA.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, the Department of Education was established 'logically' under the General Welfare clause, wrongly I agree. Infinately more logical than could be made by the Commerce Clause.

I would have no problem with the abolition of that department.

 

[Taomon]

So you did not advocate a military Coup in this statement? Here let me help you by coloring the relevant sentence.

You say military coup, I say lawfully detain enemy's of the state.

A military coup assumes that the miltary will declare martial law and rollback our Constitution. That thought scares me. Military as police removing corrupt leaders and facilitating a vote to replace the leadership under the rules of the Constitution...I am all for that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it's 'constitutional' it's not illegal. I maintain that the constitution does NOT give the powers or limitations you are maintaining. The commerce clause refers to the 'businesses' whose business dealings cross state lines. When that occurs, it's federal. It doesn't matter if that 'interstate business is doing business within the state of it's headquarters or not. If the business is only within the state, then it's state regulated. It doesn't become and interstate business because a customer lives in another state. It's always been that way.

Your wrong. But then who would have thunk it.

Further explain again how education is covered by commerce clause. I can give you the rational our Government gave if your stumped.

Explain where in the Constitution it states we have a personal right to privacy and then explain how that includes murdering unborn babies.

Explain how the Federal Government has the right to threaten States with withholding money for Federal Highways if they do not change their speed limits on NON Federal Highways?

And then explain under what authority the Federal Government created and maintains the Social Security and Medicare programs. Or what right they have to establish wage laws outside of interstate commerce?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You say military coup, I say lawfully detain enemy's of the state.

A military coup assumes that the miltary will declare martial law and rollback our Constitution. That thought scares me. Military as police removing corrupt leaders and facilitating a vote to replace the leadership under the rules of the Constitution...I am all for that.

Ohh I see, and exactly who will the Military turn over our Government to after arresting all the ELECTED and legally appointed members of the Executive? A power they do not have I might add.

 

[Annie]

Your wrong. But then who would have thunk it.

Further explain again how education is covered by commerce clause. I can give you the rational our Government gave if your stumped.

Not quite sure why you're being so snippy, but fine. If you'd read down 2 posts, you'd have found that I disagreed with the Commerce Clause being used. It was the General Welfare clause.

Explain where in the Constitution it states we have a personal right to privacy and then explain how that includes murdering unborn babies.

I didn't.

Explain how the Federal Government has the right to threaten States with withholding money for Federal Highways if they do not change their speed limits on NON Federal Highways?

the state taketh, giveth, and taketh away again. Personally I wish the states wouldn't take the money, we'd pay less in taxes. Mostly though, the fed just taketh, which is why I believe it's powers to do so should be curtailed.

And then explain under what authority the Federal Government created and maintains the Social Security and Medicare programs. Or what right they have to establish wage laws outside of interstate commerce?

Again, I think their power has grown too much, but if I had the time I'd argue for gaining some other like thinking souls to bitch to Congress and state legislatures for grabbing back some of that power.

 

[Taomon]

Ohh I see, and exactly who will the Military turn over our Government to after arresting all the ELECTED and legally appointed members of the Executive? A power they do not have I might add.

We the people do. And there is still the Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words our Constitution is being ignored on a daily basis by our Government and has been for YEARS. The loss of power to the States was directly responsible for the growing power of the Federal system.

We had to fight the Civil War, I too agree no State can just decide on its own it can leave. But that does NOT change the fact that war altered the balance of power in our system and we are now paying the price.

As for General Welfare, it does NOT mean what you and Jillian claim it means, if it did then no restriction would be applied to the Federal Government at all.

 

[Annie]

In other words our Constitution is being ignored on a daily basis by our Government and has been for YEARS. The loss of power to the States was directly responsible for the growing power of the Federal system.

We had to fight the Civil War, I too agree no State can just decide on its own it can leave. But that does NOT change the fact that war altered the balance of power in our system and we are now paying the price.

As for General Welfare, it does NOT mean what you and Jillian claim it means, if it did then no restriction would be applied to the Federal Government at all.

I was not arguing with Jillian. I was saying the rationale wasn't the Commerce Clause, I think the Department of Education was a boneheaded idea.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We the people do. And there is still the Congress.

You support a coup and yet can not explain by what authority the Military would conduct this coup, nor to whom they would magnamously agree to turn over power to.

Congress has the power to Impeach THAT is the ONLY legal power to remove the executive, not with the military at any stage.

 

[Taomon]

You support a coup and yet can not explain by what authority the Military would conduct this coup, nor to whom they would magnamously agree to turn over power to.

Congress has the power to Impeach THAT is the ONLY legal power to remove the executive, not with the military at any stage.

Forgive me, I dream of a day when a corrupt leader will not hide behind the law and be impeached legally. But Bush and Cheney are weasels. That day will not happen in this year for sure.

For one, Pelosi stated that impeachment is off the table.

 

[Annie]

Forgive me, I dream of a day when a corrupt leader will not hide behind the law and be impeached legally. But Bush and Cheney are weasels. That day will not happen in this year for sure.

For one, Pelosi stated that impeachment is off the table.

where's the link showing Bush and Cheney are weasels? Where is the definition of weasels?