Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
but where is that specified in duties and responsibilities??
its not,,
according to the 10th A it does have to be,,It does not have to be specific as long as the states agree.
For example, the constitution does not have to authorized building something like the St. Lawrence Seaway, but it does not need authority as long as the states impacted by it are not against it.
You only need authority if you are going to force something on people against their will.
No one was going to sue to stop the seaway locks and canals.
{...according to the 10th A it does have to be,,
you should try reading that part sometime,,
good,, now you know your claim is wrong,,{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
The ability of the federal government to finance something the states want, does NOT require any "power".
It is NOT trying to force anything on the states or over ride state authority.
The only people who might complain are those who are forced to finance the project, but that power and authority already was created by the federal income tax amendment.
{...
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.
Prior to the early 20th century, most federal revenue came from tariffs rather than taxes, although Congress had often imposed excise taxes on various goods. The Revenue Act of 1861 had introduced the first federal income tax, but that tax was repealed in 1872. During the late nineteenth century, various groups, including the Populist Party, favored the establishment of a progressive income tax at the federal level. These groups believed that tariffs unfairly taxed the poor, and they favored using the income tax to shift the tax burden onto wealthier individuals. The 1894 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act contained an income tax provision, but the tax was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not hold that all federal income taxes were unconstitutional, but rather held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and thus had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.
For several years after Pollock, Congress did not attempt to implement another income tax, largely due to concerns that the Supreme Court would strike down any attempt to levy an income tax. In 1909, during the debate over the Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the states. Though conservative Republican leaders had initially expected that the amendment would not be ratified, a coalition of Democrats, progressive Republicans, and other groups ensured that the necessary number of states ratified the amendment. Shortly after the amendment was ratified, Congress imposed a federal income tax with the Revenue Act of 1913. The Supreme Court upheld that income tax in the 1916 case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., and the federal government has continued to levy an income tax since 1913.
...}
good,, now you know your claim is wrong,,
why do you refuse to specify what and where they have authority and only throw out generalizations??Wrong.
You are not thinking.
Doing things states want, like airports, interstate highways, canal projects, seawall, airports, etc., do NOT require authority.
When the feds help states out with projects the states want, that is NOT over riding state authority at all, in any way.
The 9th and 10 amendments are about dividing jurisdiction between state and federal authority.
A project both the state and federal want to have done, does not require one bit of authority at all, in any way.
There is no jurisdiction conflict when states and feds are voluntarily cooperating with each other, together.
why do you refuse to specify what and where they have authority and only throw out generalizations??
youre dodging again,,,You still do not get it.
When you give money to a panhandler in the street, that in no way implies the panhandler has authority to take money from you or you have authority to force the panhandler to accept that money.
When the feds do something states want, that also the feds want, then ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY at all is required.
The only time any authority, constitutional or otherwise, is required, is when one entity forces something on another entity, against their wishes.
When it is all voluntary, then NO AUTHORITY is needed.
For your legal perspective, you first have to find someone who is against some controversial federal funding.
And to have standing, that would have to be a tax payer.
But since the tax payer did not complain when the money was collected, and their share going to the project was so little, there hardly seems to be any case.
RE: Israel MUST stop recieving all USA funds
SUBTOPIC: Authorizations
※→ Rigby5, et al,
Actually, the Federal Interstate Highway System was started during the Eisenhower Administration. [Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 374)](23 USC § 103 - National Highway System)
The Federal Reserve is in the Law of the Land (12 USC Chapter 3).
Most Respectfully,
R
the preamble doesnt apply,, only whats in the text of the constitution applies,,Agreed, but the federal highway act of 1956 also needed a constitutional justification for it to be legal.
Just passing a bill does not make it legal necessarily.
And I would suggest the preamble, such as promoting domestic tranquility, defense, and promoting interstate commerce are all adequate legal justifications.
youre dodging again,,,
specifics matter and all you have is generalizations that fail everytime,,
you may want to use them but they are not the laws set down in the text of the constitution,,Wrong.
All the founders wrote about how specifics are impossible when it comes to infinites like rights, law, or government.
The preamble gives us generalities we use all the time.
For example, try to find a specific justification for the FAA, CDC, or FDA?
You can't.
But the abstract justification can easily be understood, and everyone accepts that.
the preamble doesnt apply,, only whats in the text of the constitution applies,,
doesnt matter what you think they knew or didnt know,,Wrong.
There is no way the Founders could possibly have anticipated the changes, like in technology.
They could not imagine planes weighing hundreds of tons and carrying hundreds of people over our homes.
But clearly they would have wanted an FAA if they had known about it, and there is no way states can do air travel alone.
So then clearly the FAA is legal even though not specifically authorized by the constitution.
The preample shows original intent, so then expansion beyond actual text of the constitution can be evaluated by using it.
you may want to use them but they are not the laws set down in the text of the constitution,,
there is no interpretation because they are absolute,,The laws set down by the text of the Constitution are not supposed to be absolute by any interpretation.
What they are only supposed to do is divide jurisdiction between the federal and all other.
And that is just the beginning, since it is also clear we need global laws as well, such as the maritime law where ships are to pass on the right.
there is no interpretation because they are absolute,,
who ever said theres a right to privacy??That is ridiculously wrong.
Nothing is or even could ever possibly be absolute.
For example, the second most important rights after the right to life, likely is privacy.
Yet try to find it anywhere?
It is never explicitly stated anywhere.
So nothing is absolute or ever supposed to be absolute.
Even in every criminal trial there are always infinite potentials for mitigating circumstances that can make a crime into not a crime.
Total nulification of law can happen and be appropriate under the right circumstances.
who ever said theres a right to privacy??
sorry but your mental gymnastics arent working,,
