Our Constitution was written with a Trump like President in mind

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Founding Fathers warned about allowing the Central Gov't to get too large. Said it would lead to Corruption and abuse of Power.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent. FDR killed that.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

Enumerated powers. Specifically say your wrong.

Enumerated powers. Specifically say your wrong.

Which clause(s) of Article I § 8 proclaim I'm in error regarding the Anti-Federalist's failed attempt at maintaining the status quo at retaining the Articles of Confederation or for that matter another form of that loose confederation of States rather than the UNION of States under the Constitution?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph man, the Enumerated powers are nothing more that the DIRECT powers of Congress among their other powers, WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION which is the document that did away with "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves", the Articles of Confederation, and perfected, "...a more perfect union...." You can't cite a single clause of the 18 in that section of Article I that has a thing to do with what you're claiming.

Clearly, you don't know what the **** you're talking about!

 

[ElmerMudd]

Our Constitution was written with Trump like President in mind.
The founding Fathers built in safeguards in case the US ended up with a demagogue as President.
The key safeguard is the separation of powers.
Trump is doing his best to negate the safeguard with his war on the judiciary and the mugging of congress if they do not support him.
Our Constitution will win out.

You obviously don't know what the word "demagogue" means, because Obama was a much better fit to the definition. Obama also violated the "separation of powers" provisions. Obama is the one who tried to make law solely on his own authority, not Trump.

What "war on the judiciary?" If anything, the judiciary is making war on Trump.

Bottom line: you're a dumbass.

I am confident history will declare you and other Trumpites and their revisionist thinking as the dumbasses. I can guarantee the majority of US citizens today think you are a dumbass. I think you know that, dumbass

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Founding Fathers warned about allowing the Central Gov't to get too large. Said it would lead to Corruption and abuse of Power.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent. FDR killed that.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves. In short, you're an ignoramus.

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves.

You're clueless, little one.

Federalism encompasses the concept of dual sovereignty, Federal and the subordinates governments from the State level downward. A State's sovereignty is second to that of the Federal owing to the fact that the framers had REJECTED the failed Articles of Confederation when writing within the four corners of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Cls. 2, which you can read directly below;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis Added]

Yes, the several States can largely govern themselves, but only to the extent permitted by the Constitution and any conflicts with Federal law are made moot given that same conflict and Federal law is supreme per the Federalist's who wrote the Constitution which you know so little about! The tail does not wag the dog, fool, and that should be bloody obvious!!

You should first know what the **** you're talking about before you make an ass of yourself calling someone else an ignoramus.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Founding Fathers warned about allowing the Central Gov't to get too large. Said it would lead to Corruption and abuse of Power.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent. FDR killed that.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves. In short, you're an ignoramus.

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves.

You're clueless, little one.

Federalism encompasses the concept of dual sovereignty, Federal and the subordinates governments from the State level downward. A State's sovereignty is second to that of the Federal owing to the fact that the framers had REJECTED the failed Articles of Confederation when writing within the four corners of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Cls. 2, which you can read directly below;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis Added]

Yes, the several States can largely govern themselves, but only to the extent permitted by the Constitution and any conflicts with Federal law are made moot given that same conflict and Federal law is supreme per the Federalist's who wrote the Constitution which you know so little about! The tail does not wag the dog, fool, and that should be bloody obvious!!

You should first know what the **** you're talking about before you make an ass of yourself calling someone else an ignoramus.

I say again the 10th

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Founding Fathers warned about allowing the Central Gov't to get too large. Said it would lead to Corruption and abuse of Power.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent. FDR killed that.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves. In short, you're an ignoramus.

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves.

You're clueless, little one.

Federalism encompasses the concept of dual sovereignty, Federal and the subordinates governments from the State level downward. A State's sovereignty is second to that of the Federal owing to the fact that the framers had REJECTED the failed Articles of Confederation when writing within the four corners of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Cls. 2, which you can read directly below;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis Added]

Yes, the several States can largely govern themselves, but only to the extent permitted by the Constitution and any conflicts with Federal law are made moot given that same conflict and Federal law is supreme per the Federalist's who wrote the Constitution which you know so little about! The tail does not wag the dog, fool, and that should be bloody obvious!!

You should first know what the **** you're talking about before you make an ass of yourself calling someone else an ignoramus.

I say again the 10th

I say again the 10th

You never mentioned Amendment X to me, and I certainly would have expected that lame argument to arise first. You only mentioned the Enumerated Powers in your post #40 and that was the subject to which I responded. You're trying to hit the bulls eye with a .410 shotgun from 200 yards, fool! What will you bring up next, the Emoluments Clause or Marbury v. Madison?

Now you just tell me Einstein, what Amendment X has to do with Federalism, the distinctive differences between the sovereignty of the several States and the Federal governments and the Supremacy Clause in Section IV of the Constitution. How EXACTLY, does Amendment X stand as supreme law to the remainder of the Constitution? Read & understand bloody 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.

Now read the Supremacy Clause;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, IF the Constitution has not granted specific or implied powers to the several States, they remain the sovereign powers of the Federal Government until amended to alter that state. Do you see where the split is in the powers as defined by the words in the Constitution, or will you persist that the plain language employed by the Framers is ambiguous or not what it clearly states?

Again, you space cadet, in yet other words, the States ceded a portion of their sovereignty to join a UNION of States and the Federal ceded a portion of their sovereignty back to the States as a balance, so very unlike the faulty Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a simple confederation of independent States and the former IS a union of interdependent States going the same direction, a UNION.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Founding Fathers warned about allowing the Central Gov't to get too large. Said it would lead to Corruption and abuse of Power.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent. FDR killed that.

They were correct. Limited Gov't with States governing themselves was their intent.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves. In short, you're an ignoramus.

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves.

You're clueless, little one.

Federalism encompasses the concept of dual sovereignty, Federal and the subordinates governments from the State level downward. A State's sovereignty is second to that of the Federal owing to the fact that the framers had REJECTED the failed Articles of Confederation when writing within the four corners of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Cls. 2, which you can read directly below;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis Added]

Yes, the several States can largely govern themselves, but only to the extent permitted by the Constitution and any conflicts with Federal law are made moot given that same conflict and Federal law is supreme per the Federalist's who wrote the Constitution which you know so little about! The tail does not wag the dog, fool, and that should be bloody obvious!!

You should first know what the **** you're talking about before you make an ass of yourself calling someone else an ignoramus.

I say again the 10th

I say again the 10th

You never mentioned Amendment X to me, and I certainly would have expected that lame argument to arise first. You only mentioned the Enumerated Powers in your post #40 and that was the subject to which I responded. You're trying to hit the bulls eye with a .410 shotgun from 200 yards, fool! What will you bring up next, the Emoluments Clause or Marbury v. Madison?

Now you just tell me Einstein, what Amendment X has to do with Federalism, the distinctive differences between the sovereignty of the several States and the Federal governments and the Supremacy Clause in Section IV of the Constitution. How EXACTLY, does Amendment X stand as supreme law to the remainder of the Constitution? Read & understand bloody 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.

Now read the Supremacy Clause;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, IF the Constitution has not granted specific or implied powers to the several States, they remain the sovereign powers of the Federal Government until amended to alter that state. Do you see where the split is in the powers as defined by the words in the Constitution, or will you persist that the plain language employed by the Framers is ambiguous or not what it clearly states?

Again, you space cadet, in yet other words, the States ceded a portion of their sovereignty to join a UNION of States and the Federal ceded a portion of their sovereignty back to the States as a balance, so very unlike the faulty Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a simple confederation of independent States and the former IS a union of interdependent States going the same direction, a UNION.

Plenty of Federalist papers that say your wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

Our Constitution was written with Trump like President in mind.
The founding Fathers built in safeguards in case the US ended up with a demagogue as President.
The key safeguard is the separation of powers.
Trump is doing his best to negate the safeguard with his war on the judiciary and the mugging of congress if they do not support him.
Our Constitution will win out.

You obviously don't know what the word "demagogue" means, because Obama was a much better fit to the definition. Obama also violated the "separation of powers" provisions. Obama is the one who tried to make law solely on his own authority, not Trump.

What "war on the judiciary?" If anything, the judiciary is making war on Trump.

Bottom line: you're a dumbass.

I am confident history will declare you and other Trumpites and their revisionist thinking as the dumbasses. I can guarantee the majority of US citizens today think you are a dumbass. I think you know that, dumbass

You were confident on winning the last election too.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Absolutely incorrect and wrong headed as that was NEVER the Framer's intent. The entire idea of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was to shed the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" paradigm and relegate that unworkable foolishness to the eternal pile of failed experiments and, "...form a more perfect union...."

The Anti-Federalists lost that argument you're pushing on the day the US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It's past time for you 'hangers on of outmoded failed ideas' to acknowledge the lessons of history.

The only Founding Fathers who desired what your pushing were the ones desiring to maintain the status quo, and they lost in 1788. You people really need to read some ACTUAL history and not this partisan propagandized new age sophistry. I suggest starting with the Federalist Papers to begin finding the TRUTH! You should start with Federalist #10 and read what Madison wrote about the pitfalls of faction and the fracturing of unity via factions withing the body politic!

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves. In short, you're an ignoramus.

For your information, "federalism" is the system where the states largel government themselves.

You're clueless, little one.

Federalism encompasses the concept of dual sovereignty, Federal and the subordinates governments from the State level downward. A State's sovereignty is second to that of the Federal owing to the fact that the framers had REJECTED the failed Articles of Confederation when writing within the four corners of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Cls. 2, which you can read directly below;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis Added]

Yes, the several States can largely govern themselves, but only to the extent permitted by the Constitution and any conflicts with Federal law are made moot given that same conflict and Federal law is supreme per the Federalist's who wrote the Constitution which you know so little about! The tail does not wag the dog, fool, and that should be bloody obvious!!

You should first know what the **** you're talking about before you make an ass of yourself calling someone else an ignoramus.

I say again the 10th

I say again the 10th

You never mentioned Amendment X to me, and I certainly would have expected that lame argument to arise first. You only mentioned the Enumerated Powers in your post #40 and that was the subject to which I responded. You're trying to hit the bulls eye with a .410 shotgun from 200 yards, fool! What will you bring up next, the Emoluments Clause or Marbury v. Madison?

Now you just tell me Einstein, what Amendment X has to do with Federalism, the distinctive differences between the sovereignty of the several States and the Federal governments and the Supremacy Clause in Section IV of the Constitution. How EXACTLY, does Amendment X stand as supreme law to the remainder of the Constitution? Read & understand bloody 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.

Now read the Supremacy Clause;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, IF the Constitution has not granted specific or implied powers to the several States, they remain the sovereign powers of the Federal Government until amended to alter that state. Do you see where the split is in the powers as defined by the words in the Constitution, or will you persist that the plain language employed by the Framers is ambiguous or not what it clearly states?

Again, you space cadet, in yet other words, the States ceded a portion of their sovereignty to join a UNION of States and the Federal ceded a portion of their sovereignty back to the States as a balance, so very unlike the faulty Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a simple confederation of independent States and the former IS a union of interdependent States going the same direction, a UNION.

Plenty of Federalist papers that say your wrong.

Plenty of Federalist papers that say your wrong.

Cite them and quote the relevant passages, asswipe!

 

[eagle1462010]

Posting on my phone maybe I will. Maybe I will not.

Powers reserved to the states. And you can Google the quotes. They are there.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Posting on my phone maybe I will. Maybe I will not.

Powers reserved to the states. And you can Google the quotes. They are there.

Don't just put out a bunch of shit like you've been doing, make an argument HOW what you claim is true AND valid with supporting evidence just like I've done, you ******* loser!

Neither the Article I enumerated powers nor Amendment X can in any form override the Supremacy Clause of Article IV and your claim of, "Limited Gov't with States governing themselves" is the long dead desire of the Anti-Federalists. Go ahead and post the New York phone book if you wish. Nothing will correct your base ignorance and uninformed bombast short of ratification of the 28th Amendment to that effect. Stupid ******* rabbit!

If you got nothing but bullshit, piss off and STFU, boi!