Living Document or Not?

[Tech_Esq]

Just in case any buffoon want's to rely on the government's taxing power for authority to force people to purchase insurance, the Judge failed that argument on the government's motion to strike.

So, any supporters will need to actually find Constitutional support for their contention that it is Constitutional (Article I, Section 8 power). For those who seek to to use rube arguments like - "It covered under the General Welfare clause" I will remind you that the subsequent clauses under Article I, Section 8 describe what General Welfare the Congress may legislate about. As Madison -- you know, the guy who wrote the document -- said in Federalist 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

So, if you think the "General Welfare" clause is a grant of power, Madison just ***** slapped you for your pathetic stooping to misconstruction of the language to reach that conclusion. If you persist, I'll post more ass-kicking comments from the father of the Constitution about what kind of a pathetic individual you must be to attempt such a poor interpretation of the Constitution.

The "necessary and proper" clause aka the "elastic" clause, is not so elastic that it covers anything that Congress wants to do. Anyone who thinks so will find themselves off on an island. I will refer the other side to McCulloch v Maryland and Chief Justice Marshall's interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause. His view was an expansive one. However, the Congress must first have it within it's power to do the object of the legislation. If they have that power, then Marshall said, they have the whatever additional power they need to carry the thing forward into practice.

Thus, "necessary and proper" does not grant Congress Carte Blanche to do what it will, but is rather to be understood as a supporting mechanism. It provides that Congress can use whatever means "necessary and proper" to bring to fruition the legitimate law created by them within its Article I, Section 8 powers.

Any other reading is specious and corrupt.

 

[Bern80]

Because the law is considered constitutional until a court decides otherwise. You have to give a case where it is not. You don't begin with the Constitution, then leave it there. Why? You are not an authority on it. Go find someone who is considered an expert, and then post what s/he thinks about it with facts and evidence.

If you can't do this, then you fail.

Back to this again? What does that have to do with clause 18? Your new argument is that whatever congress passes is constitutional, even if it isn't? Do you even listen to yourself? What you just said is that if government were to pass a law that no one may possess a gun, that would be constitutional. Is that really your new argument?

As far as being an expert on the constitution, that is argument that is getting pretty old and has no merit. No one needs to be an expert to understand the constitution. You are using that as a cop out because obviously you really dont understand it. I do because I can understand written english. That was the intent of the framers, not for everyone to have to defer to some expert in order to understand their rights.

 

[Bern80]

Because the law is considered constitutional until a court decides otherwise. You have to give a case where it is not. You don't begin with the Constitution, then leave it there. Why? You are not an authority on it. Go find someone who is considered an expert, and then post what s/he thinks about it with facts and evidence.

If you can't do this, then you fail.

So your answer is no, you can't show where in the constitution the goverment is granted some power that would make such a law neccessary and proper?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Don't worry about it Bern, we're past the point the Snarkey is babbling about. A court has already rejected all of the government's motions to strike. The law is no longer presumptively Constitutional. If it were, they would have succeeded on at least one of their motions to strike.

Snarkey is mistaken as usual.

 

[Liability]

Because the law is considered constitutional until a court decides otherwise. You have to give a case where it is not. You don't begin with the Constitution, then leave it there. Why? You are not an authority on it. Go find someone who is considered an expert, and then post what s/he thinks about it with facts and evidence.

If you can't do this, then you fail.

Jokey simply cannot help but be wrong.

A law can be facially invalid and unconstitutional. And yet, even before a Court gives it an official coup de grace, it can issue an injunction to prohibit the danger and damage that could be inflicted if the law were allowed to be given effect even for the time it takes to get a final constitutional adjudication. How could that be, though ,if the law is "considered constitutional until a court decides otherwise?" Hm. That would be a puzzlement if Jokey were correct.

But he's not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No mistake at all. You are guys are mistaken. You guys are not authorities on the Constitution, so your opinions, kiddos, don't mean a thing other than you disagree with the legislation. So no one cares what you think.

Now if you want to post the judge's findings and why, go ahead. That is far better than what you guys have been doing. As if you are experts. As if.

 

[Bern80]

No mistake at all. You are guys are mistaken. You guys are not authorities on the Constitution, so your opinions, kiddos, don't mean a thing other than you disagree with the legislation. So no one cares what you think.

Now if you want to post the judge's findings and why, go ahead. That is far better than what you guys have been doing. As if you are experts. As if.

So what you are saying is if congress passed a nation wide gun ban, that would be constitutional according to you, correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No mistake at all. You are guys are mistaken. You guys are not authorities on the Constitution, so your opinions, kiddos, don't mean a thing other than you disagree with the legislation. So no one cares what you think.

Now if you want to post the judge's findings and why, go ahead. That is far better than what you guys have been doing. As if you are experts. As if.

So what you are saying is if congress passed a nation wide gun ban, that would be constitutional according to you, correct?

We would all have an opinion, which would mean nothing in and of itself. SCOTUS would decide. Not you, not me, not Bozo.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Funny as hell, did I see that right in your reply Bern? Snarkey actually said that lawyers are not authorities on the Constitution?

Bwahahahahahaha ....

What a dumb ass. All of those hours and hours of reviewing a briefing Constitutional law cases in Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure and Legislation and on and on, but yep that's meaningless. An irrational boob. Too bad I can still see his comments in people's replies.

Snarkey has no arguments of his own and just hopes to tear down legitimate and supported arguments against him so he has something to say. JS - "Duh, nope, that's not it." Loser

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have plenty of actual legal opinions. I said nothing about lawyers not being authorities: I said you, me, and Bozo.

SCOTUS will decide. The lawyers will give law and try to guide SCOTUS to the decision they want.

You fools want to begin with "the right decision" without working for it.

Boys, you continue to fail.

 

[Bern80]

No mistake at all. You are guys are mistaken. You guys are not authorities on the Constitution, so your opinions, kiddos, don't mean a thing other than you disagree with the legislation. So no one cares what you think.

Now if you want to post the judge's findings and why, go ahead. That is far better than what you guys have been doing. As if you are experts. As if.

So what you are saying is if congress passed a nation wide gun ban, that would be constitutional according to you, correct?

We would all have an opinion, which would mean nothing in and of itself. SCOTUS would decide. Not you, not me, not Bozo.

It's a yes or no question weasel. Try again. I tried to pick a law that would be the most obvious contradiction to what the constitution says as i could. No intermediary is required to see a conflict between two things. If the constitution says I get to own a gun and then congress says no one can own a gun no matter what, they would be in violation of the constitution. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, stick by your opinion. Who cares? You prove my point. Thinking and analysis works to the fourth level. You have demonstrated no ability to go beyond the second level. That is why those here who can think clearly either make fun of you, patronize you, or ignore you. Me? You amuse me.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, stick by your opinion. Who cares? You prove my point. Thinking and analysis works to the fourth level. You have demonstrated no ability to go beyond the second level. That is why those here who can think clearly either make fun of you, patronize you, or ignore you. Me? You amuse me.

Unfortuantely it is not an opinion. A third party does need to rule on something for me or anyone else to see when one thing is in contradiction of another. The fact that you can't confirm with a yes or no whether one statement is in contradiction of another proves that you are either a) still a weasel because you know you're caught or b) too stupid to figure it out. Can you explain why you don't know whether a nation wide gun ban would be a violation of the constitution? Can you explain why the government might have the authority to do so under the constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bern and bigreb fail again.

Neither want to deal with facts, evidence, information, then go to logic and analysis.

They simply want to spew what they believe as truth. It is not, they are wrong, and demonstrate they have no idea how to discuss the important issues of the day.

Posting parts of the constitution without reputable commentary is not discussion, guys. It is merely you revealing that you can't think.

big fat 0 What I posted came from The Federalist papers number 41 you can't get much more factual then that so you lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know the Federalist papers back and forth. Good for Jay, Madison, and Hamilton. But they are not authorities on constitutional law today.

Give us some laws, bigreb or bern, because your opinions don't count.

 

[Bern80]

I know the Federalist papers back and forth. Good for Jay, Madison, and Hamilton. But they are not authorities on constitutional law today.

Give us some laws, bigreb or bern, because your opinions don't count.

About as well as you seem to know the constitution? What a ******* joke. You're the dumbass that cited article VI as evidence that government can require people to purchase healthcare. And we're suppossed to believe that YOU can understand the federalist papers?

There is nothing in constititional law today that supports your viewpoints, which are:

That article VI grants the fed the authority to require people to purchase health care. (again truly hilarious)

That clause 18 of Article I, Section 8 grants the fed the authority to require people to purchase health care.

That everything congress passes is always constitutional (even if it isn't).

The record of this thread, just as the last one I stomped your ass in will show that you are the one with no evidence and no even remotely passable argument. Those are the provable facts on display here, weasel. If you think constitutional law makes you right, YOU site the evidence. Until then the record will remain that you have utterly failed to make any type of case whatsoever. It has devolved into your OPINION that I dont undertstand the constitution, a document you yourself admit you don't understand, so your contention that I dont know what I am talking about is unprovable. At best you are forced to admit that I very well may be right given that you can't even must a semi-plausbile counter argument, citing the constitution or anything else for that matter. Instead you ***** by arguing an OPINION that I am not an expert. A truly laughable opinion for a lot of reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I cited the elastic clause, which empowers Congress to carry out the purposes of the Constitution. Article VI, among other issues, cites the supremacy of the Constitution, of federal law to state law. Thus any challenge by the states will eventually lose. You have not refuted it, so point to me.

You have cited people dead for almost 200 years, and who cares?

Your opinions, little conies, don't matter.

You fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I cited the elastic clause, which empowers Congress to carry out the purposes of the Constitution. Article VI, among other issues, cites the supremacy of the Constitution, of federal law to state law. Thus any challenge by the states will eventually lose. You have not refuted it, so point to me.

You have cited people dead for almost 200 years, and who cares?

Your opinions, little conies, don't matter.

You fail.

You fail because you do not know what you are supporting o talking about.
The elastic clause
a statement in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) granting Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers.


The list and there purpose 
-To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
-To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
-To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
-To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
None of that fits the healthcare law.

I cite the Tenth Amendment again

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.

No state gave the federal government that much power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's just what I mean, bigreb. You don't understand the Constitution or what it means. SCOTUS has interpreted it to include all purposes and intentions of the Constitution as well as the enumerated powers. See, you know not of what you talk.

The point is SCOTUS does decide and bigreb better abide, by SCOTUS decisions.

 

[Liability]

Jokey is a deliberate liar and a ******* retard.

Clearly, there's no point in trying to reason with a piece of shit like him.

He's not capable of rational discussion.