Liberals: Where You Went Wrong

[Plasmaball]

I do... Civil/Revolutionary War II.

Do it, hike up your balls, get your pals and storm the fucking gates already you pussy.
Shut the computer off, grab your gear and go be a hero for these fuckstains.

No...I don't think you would. I bet you would start stroming with your buddies and duck out fast. Welching on that as well.

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens, and you fucking POS little commie loud mouth trolls better hope and pray it doesn't. But if you and your thug union goon types want to keep up your violent ways, you're going to run into a crowd that doesn't back up with their arms in the air. Instead you'll get your mosquito ass kicked up around your fucking loud alligator mouth. So keep it up jack off, and you'll get your wish sooner or later.

lol.....look welching again!

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

 

[Plasmaball]

Don't worry pissball, it won't be "just me and my buddies" if and when it ever happens, and you fucking POS little commie loud mouth trolls better hope and pray it doesn't. But if you and your thug union goon types want to keep up your violent ways, you're going to run into a crowd that doesn't back up with their arms in the air. Instead you'll get your mosquito ass kicked up around your fucking loud alligator mouth. So keep it up jack off, and you'll get your wish sooner or later.

You whine like a little bitch really, really well.

Your type is the first to run when the talking ends, Cindy.

lol. Full of wind, eh? That could wind up not working in your favor, Windy One.

oh good the mental giant is here

 

[mjollnir]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

LOL, you noticed that too, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

And today, no conservative, for example, opposes the right of women to vote. At least none I can think of. What was once a divisive controversial liberal cause is now universally accepted. Why?

Because progress is human nature. Conservatives, generation by generation, routinely oppose progress; they seek to 'conserve' that which natural human progress is attempting to change.

One of the things the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood hates most is the woman's right to vote and they would get rid of it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it!

August 8, 2008
RUSH: Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us, by the way. If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit, but that's another story.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
- Ann Coulter, The Guardian, Friday 16 May 2003

"...the woman's right to vote and they would get rid of it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it!"


Hey.....can you stop writing those mash notes to Rush!!



BTW...Republicans got women the right to vote....and Democrats did everything they could to stall it.

Just as it was the Democrat Party that stood for slavery and segregation....
.....you know that, don't you?


Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged about how, after voting (illegally) in 1872, she had voted a straight Republican ticket. The suffragists included two African-American women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great Republicans, both of them.
Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women’s suffrage amendment in 1878,though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. It was in 1916 that the first woman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin. The first woman mayor was elected in 1926, the Honorable Bertha Landes of Seattle, another great Republican.
Everything I Know Is Wrong: History of the Republican Party



Interesting that the Democrats filibustered to prevent the vote for suffrage....

....exactly what the Democrats did to prevent anti-lynching laws: killed 'em all in the Senate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

Is this your new fall-back position?

Now that you've been whipped so soundly about women's suffrage...and the Founders being conservatives....and about healthcare being available prior to ObamaCare?


This is all you've got left?

Advice: go back to the 'cut and paste' thing....



I can play my fav school song again if you like...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Conservatives is that they are always on the wrong side of history

They opposed the American Revolution
They opposed abolition
They opposed the womens vote
They opposed worker protections
They opposed Civil Rights
They opposed environmental protections

Today, they continue the proud legacy of conservatism.....blocking gay rights, access to healthcare, immigration reform

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

OK....let's figure this out.

It's a two-party system.

So, I use Republican together with conservative....


Just as I use liberal-progressive-Democrat- feminist- socialist- communist- environmentalist- leftist- hocus/pocusist.....

All the same.

You know where I stand....

....you obfuscate with that avi....but I recognize ya'

 

[rightwinger]

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

OK....let's figure this out.

It's a two-party system.

So, I use Republican together with conservative....


Just as I use liberal-progressive-Democrat- feminist- socialist- communist- environmentalist- leftist- hocus/pocusist.....

All the same.

You know where I stand....

....you obfuscate with that avi....but I recognize ya'

Assuming Liberalism and the Republican Party are mutually exclusive is your problem

Ann Coulter is proud as hell of you....Columbia University sheds a collective tear

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals like to retroactively stamp their brand on all of history's great people. According to them, George Washington, Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein were all "Liberals"

LOLz

Funny shit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a silly post.
But...exactly what I have come to expect of you.


1. The conservatives were the makers of the American Revolution.
Possibly your confusion is due to the fact that it was the Russian Revolution, and Liberal support for same that you mis-recall.
“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

So, classical liberals are today's conservatives: individualism, private property, and limits on power.


2. Women's suffrage?
Republicans.
Is that close enough to 'conservative'?

a. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

b. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

c. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats.

c. 26 of the 36 states that ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures.


Gee, you really don't know anything, do you?



3. They opposed worker protections.
Well....Liberals sure were in favor of "The Worker's Paradise," weren't they?



4. "Conservatives...blocking access to healthcare"
You mean you didn't know that prior to ObamaCare every single citizen...even illegals...
had access to healthcare?
Really?

How do you find your way home each day?

Breadcrumbs?

Sad that PC doesn't understand the difference between Conservatives and Republicans

What a waste of an education

Is this your new fall-back position?

Now that you've been whipped so soundly about women's suffrage...and the Founders being conservatives....and about healthcare being available prior to ObamaCare?


This is all you've got left?

Advice: go back to the 'cut and paste' thing....

I can play my fav school song again if you like...

Hand out ice packs next time

 

[konradv]

Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

 

[hazlnut]

I love when the losing side tells the winning side what they did wrong...

She's the chunky queen of copy/paste.

Original thought is like her kryptonite.


A lot of the fringe-rightie teabrains around here are like that, they never learned to think or write.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The founders did not put controls over coporations in the constitution. They granted congress the enumerated power to regulate the commerce between states, foreign entities and the Natives. It says nothing about "create charters for corporations and limit their abilities." That was initiatives taken up in state legislation. And the supreme court made case laws either favorably or agains the states rights to do so.

But like all LOLberals, you obfuscate fromt eh original assertion, then claim something else. Then turn around and attack because you can not come up with the evidence for your assertion.

To top it all off, you have a problem with the supreme courts decisions when they go against what you wish, but love them when they go for your wish. That is so shocking.

Wow, you're one ignorant Libershitheadtarian. The founders did give the legislature and executive the right to regulate corporations, under several clauses, including "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", "Weights and Measures". The first congress, after the ratification of the Constitution clearly exercised these rights in Federally chartering several corporations, including banking and infrastructure. They granted "LIMITED LIABILITY", which can be argued to be an afront to individual rights. They also limited both term and activities.

And yes, I do have problems with some Supreme Court rulings. Some are total bullshit, like Dred Scott and Citizens United. When agreggious enough, the Court will either overturn them or an Amendment process will make them moot.

What do you make of Citizens United, in light of Dodge v. Woolsey? Does a state, or the United States, have the right to regulate what the court claimed as "artificial bodies"?

Federal chartering of corporations that were suppose to be the works of congress authority. Banking, railraods. The constitution didn't give these powers to regulate all corporations, which is what you asserted by saying "the founders put so many limits on corporations."

As for citiznes United, I agree with you. Corporations aren't people adn do not have individual rights. How can a group have individual rights together? they can not. It's unconstitutional. the same way many, many interpretations of the constitution have undermined its authority.

Yet the founders did put restrictions on corporations.

That wasn't the point. I asked for specific constitutional passsage that gave the congress the right to limit corporations. You failed at that and instead came back with a state legislation.

Jeebus.

In spite of the fact that I've answered this three times, and you were too ignorant to accept it, it's the clear wording of the "General Welfare" clause, the "Interstate Commerce" clause, the "Weights and Measures" clause, among others.

And you lie. I didn't come back with "state legislation". I limited myself to how the founders regulated and limited FEDERALLY chartered corporations.

But if you want to discuss states rights to charter corporations, how do you reconcile the right to sue for damage, which is a clear and compelling contitutional right, with the ability of states to limit liability of corporations? The ninth amendment exception is clear. So is the seventh amendment. By what grounds does a state have the right to limit civil suits, in the face of a trial by jury? Where does a state, or the United States, have the right to usurp the VII Amendment?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nothing in your link was in regard to federal charters. it was state charter being undermined by SCOTUS ruling. But i'm the ignorant one.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

 

[toxicmedia]

Funny how many of you who couldn't wait for November are now having trouble accepting what happened.

So you guys thought Nov 2010 was a harbinger of Democratic doom, but in reality, all that catterwalling about traditional marriage, contraception, immigration, and "real Americans" ended up squandering any legitimacy for the GOP cause.

 

[konradv]

Limits on corporations? Inside the constitution? Can you cite and post these restrictions?
The interstate commerce clause was not a free for all to let the government decide all issues regarding commerce. Only authoritarians believe that to be so. It is the most abused clause in the constitution, right after "general welfare".

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it just IS. I didn't say we didn't have constitutional law, just that without government we have no law at all. If you don't like the commerce or general welfare clauses, get them changed. Don't act as if there's some sort of unwritten standard that's being violated, because such a standard doesn't exist. If rights/privileges are the result of government, the answer isn't to chafe at the notion, but to make sure the government operates as close to your ideals as possible, realizing that if you don't get everything you want it isn't necessarily "abuse" or "involuntary servitude", but just the way things are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that whatever the USSC allows IS the law of the land. Work to get it changed, but calling it "abuse" is just an opinion and neither here nor there. You seem to be falling under the same misconception as PC that there's something "natural" about all this that should win out. Sorry, but that's just a fantasy. Without a government strong enough to makes its laws stick, none of it exists.

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it just IS. I didn't say we didn't have constitutional law, just that without government we have no law at all. If you don't like the commerce or general welfare clauses, get them changed. Don't act as if there's some sort of unwritten standard that's being violated, because such a standard doesn't exist. If rights/privileges are the result of government, the answer isn't to chafe at the notion, but to make sure the government operates as close to your ideals as possible, realizing that if you don't get everything you want it isn't necessarily "abuse" or "involuntary servitude", but just the way things are.

The rights are inalienable. The constitution was designed to protect these rights against tyranical government, they were not granted for a government to enforce. The constitution/bill of rights iis explicit about this. The enforcement of protecting these rights comes from our representatives. Without these representatives, or their ability to "interpret" the context of enumerated powers, we still have our inalienable rights. If this enforcement agency fails to protect the rights, then we should alter it or overthrow it completely. As per the declaration of I/Bill of rights/constitution.

 

[konradv]

Then you have no rights. You have privileges that are obtained by the government. They may go ahead and take them all away too. So you truly have no constitutional law. What you have are rulers. And you apparently like this idea.

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it just IS. I didn't say we didn't have constitutional law, just that without government we have no law at all. If you don't like the commerce or general welfare clauses, get them changed. Don't act as if there's some sort of unwritten standard that's being violated, because such a standard doesn't exist. If rights/privileges are the result of government, the answer isn't to chafe at the notion, but to make sure the government operates as close to your ideals as possible, realizing that if you don't get everything you want it isn't necessarily "abuse" or "involuntary servitude", but just the way things are.

The rights are inalienable. The constitution was designed to protect these rights against tyranical government, they were not granted for a government to enforce. The constitution/bill of rights iis explicit about this. The enforcement of protecting these rights comes from our representatives. Without these representatives, or their ability to "interpret" the context of enumerated powers, we still have our inalienable rights. If this enforcement agency fails to protect the rights, then we should alter it or overthrow it completely. As per the declaration of I/Bill of rights/constitution.

That's a fairy tale. There's no such thing as an inalienable right. Without government, if I'm stronger than you, I may do anything I want to you with impunity. Take off your rose-colored glasses. You're talking in circles. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place and wouldn't need a government to enforce it. You've proven my contention that the hippies didn't become liberals, they became libertarians.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Nothing in your link was in regard to federal charters. it was state charter being undermined by SCOTUS ruling. But i'm the ignorant one.

Lying fuck. There were several instances of Federally' chartered corporations for banks and canals (infrastucture), in the link.