Please show me the word "Christ" in the U.S. Constitution.

[norwegen]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

Are you?

 

[jillian]

you seem confused about the role of religion in government.

it doesn't have one.

I haven't heard of anyone stating it was or that they want a theocracy. That is just the left once again fear mongering. Congrats, jillian! Your cohorts would be proud. You can call this one the war on atheists!

Whether people like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles and morals.

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

Does say "Creator" though.

BINGO.....

And?

They specifically rejected the idea of a theocracy.

 

[orogenicman]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

 

[jillian]

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

so more than 200 years of jurisprudence is wrong and wingnjts are correct?

 

[jillian]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.

and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.

one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.

 

[norwegen]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

 

[orogenicman]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

 

[norwegen]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.

Or can you show the class otherwise?

 

[orogenicman]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.
United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.

Or can you show the class otherwise?

Erm, what? Strawman argument. Have you read Article 1, Section 8, yet? What about United States v. Butler? Read that yet? Come back when you do and we shall discuss this some more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

Are you?

I am telling you who is, if you'd pay attention.

 

[Kosh]

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.

Or can you show the class otherwise?

Erm, what? Strawman argument. Have you read Article 1, Section 8, yet? What about United States v. Butler? Read that yet? Come back when you do and we shall discuss this some more.

Nothing to discuss as it has no bearing on anything (except taxes) and the few keywords that your far left programming allowed you to pick up on site that allow users to edit content....

 

[norwegen]

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.

Or can you show the class otherwise?

Erm, what? Strawman argument. Have you read Article 1, Section 8, yet? What about United States v. Butler? Read that yet? Come back when you do and we shall discuss this some more.

Sure, when you're done arguing with straw man arguments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Case law is irrelevant? What cloud are you on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.
United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

Excuse me? The SCOTUS is designed to settled matters wrt the constitutionality of our laws and regulations. It is the final word on these matters, barring changes made via constitutional amendment. So don't give me this "case law is irrelevant" crap. As for taking property from people and giving it to others, perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution, bubba. Pay particular attention to Article 1, Section 8. And again, read United States v. Butler.

Your fart is excused.

Your obfuscation is not, Denial is not a river in Egypt, bubba.

The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.

Or can you show the class otherwise?

How would you propose to strike down an unconstitutional state law?

 

[TooTall]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

Emergency rooms do not turn away anyone.

 

[GHook93]

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

Show me where in the constitution it mention right to privacy? It's not there, yet it's a fundamental right found in the penumbras of the constitutional amendments in the Griswald and infamous Roe vs Wade!

Show me where in the constitution it stated there must be a separation of church in state? Again it's not there. It was establish as a fundamental principal of the land in the Everson case of 1947!

Show me where is say the US be free from religion? It's not there and not case law has established it. It's a fundamental liberal tenant unjustly pushed upon Christians (to which I am not one of) in an concerted effort to destroy the will of Christian to practice, preach and love their wonderful religion (which again I am not a member of).

YET stated right there in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Douche bag liberals scream for freedom from religion until the Death Cult known as Islam screams for special treatment. Then at that point asshats like you scream placate the demon worshipers because of freedom of religion.

This country was founded by Christians on Christian principals. They are nice enough to allow Muslims, Jews and atheist the ability to take advantage of this great country, yet you have most atheist and Muslims (and liberal Jews) trying to destroy the Christian foundation that was instrumental to making this such a great country.

Muslims, Jews, and atheists fought for the new USA against the British, along with natives, and more exotic religions. USA may have been founded by Christians on Christian principles, but NOT on Christian elitism or exclusivity like the bastard child Christianity has become.

Probably 99% of soldiers were Christians, but nice try! You might find 1 or 2 Muslims, Jewish sources say it was around 100 that fought in the war (but I think 40 at best). Nevertheless this country was founded on christian ideology.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If religion was really insignificant in this country and has no real place in our nation, they wouldn't have placed it's importance under the FIRST Amendment.

The 1st Amendment is there to keep such things from happening as, for example, angry bigoted Christians trying to ban the building of mosques in their community.

What such things? It clearly states that government is not allowed to favor one religious denomination, but all all the freedom to openly worship according to their conscience. Government was meant to stay out of religion period. What part of "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" do you NOT comprehend?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

Show me where in the constitution it mention right to privacy? It's not there, yet it's a fundamental right found in the penumbras of the constitutional amendments in the Griswald and infamous Roe vs Wade!

Show me where in the constitution it stated there must be a separation of church in state? Again it's not there. It was establish as a fundamental principal of the land in the Everson case of 1947!

Show me where is say the US be free from religion? It's not there and not case law has established it. It's a fundamental liberal tenant unjustly pushed upon Christians (to which I am not one of) in an concerted effort to destroy the will of Christian to practice, preach and love their wonderful religion (which again I am not a member of).

YET stated right there in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Douche bag liberals scream for freedom from religion until the Death Cult known as Islam screams for special treatment. Then at that point asshats like you scream placate the demon worshipers because of freedom of religion.

This country was founded by Christians on Christian principals. They are nice enough to allow Muslims, Jews and atheist the ability to take advantage of this great country, yet you have most atheist and Muslims (and liberal Jews) trying to destroy the Christian foundation that was instrumental to making this such a great country.

Muslims, Jews, and atheists fought for the new USA against the British, along with natives, and more exotic religions. USA may have been founded by Christians on Christian principles, but NOT on Christian elitism or exclusivity like the bastard child Christianity has become.

Probably 99% of soldiers were Christians, but nice try! You might find 1 or 2 Muslims, Jewish sources say it was around 100 that fought in the war (but I think 40 at best). Nevertheless this country was founded on christian ideology.

What's uniquely Christian about the way we were founded? England was officially Christian; we rebelled against that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If religion was really insignificant in this country and has no real place in our nation, they wouldn't have placed it's importance under the FIRST Amendment.

The 1st Amendment is there to keep such things from happening as, for example, angry bigoted Christians trying to ban the building of mosques in their community.

What such things? It clearly states that government is not allowed to favor one religious denomination, but all all the freedom to openly worship according to their conscience. Government was meant to stay out of religion period. What part of "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" do you NOT comprehend?

No it's not meant to 'stay out' of religion. It's meant to have the power to protect religious freedom.

 

[norwegen]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

Are you?

I am telling you who is, if you'd pay attention.

James Madison would be a good arbiter of the Constitution, wouldn't you say?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”