Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[JakeStarkey]

"Alex, I will take Disinformation Agents for $1000". Who here has ever said that Rousseau's influence was greater than Locke's on the Founders? Who here has implied that the Founders did not believe in the Social Compact? Who here has projected when mentioning Pravda?

"Alex, what is Neotrotsky!"

 

[Neotrotsky]

Who has implied the following
One hint, rhymes with Fake

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you lie, Neo? I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above. You are not mainstream at all, Neo. But you pretend you are. The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense. Have you listed a mainstream scholar, jurist, academic, politician, leader, or media in support of your non-mainstream mantra?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Why do you lie, Neo? I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above. You are not mainstream at all, Neo. But you pretend you are. The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.

Jake,

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.
Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so

Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?

I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.
You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.

Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about

 

[midcan5]

Kinda silly rule and representative of the content and character of the new members. Childish tantrums and obfuscation. Aren't these adults who were elected as representatives of the people and tasked with carrying out the desires of their constituents? I realize for most republicans their constituents are the wealthy and the corporations, so given that fact, everything the new members would do would be unconstitutional? 'Citizens United' helped though. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World Now if only the constitution included the words, 'we hold this truth, money talks louder than people's rights.'


"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups."
Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon

 

[Neotrotsky]

Kinda silly rule and representative of the content and character of the new members. Childish tantrums and obfuscation. Aren't these adults who were elected as representatives of the people and tasked with carrying out the desires of their constituents? I realize for most republicans their constituents are the wealthy and the corporations so given that fact, everything the new members would do would be unconstitutional? Citizens United helped though. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World Now if only the constitution included the words, 'we hold this truth, money talks, people walk.'


"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups."
Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon

Wall Street gave no money to Papa Obama?

 

[Cecilie1200]

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.

If it bites them in the ass, then it SHOULD bite them in the ass. I'm no happier with Republicans playing fast and loose with the Constitution than I am with Democrats doing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?

but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?

Not at all! But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.

Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing they are constitutional?

Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it

Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with.....

On the contrary, I DEFINITELY suggest the Democrats run with that slogan. I haven't had a laugh like that since Bill Clinton told us he couldn't define "is".

 

[Cecilie1200]

The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.

Yes, they would have helped you a lot


But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.

Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing they are constitutional?

Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it

Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...

There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.

Really? It's really not the job of Congress to consider the Constitution and the limits of Congressional power when passing laws? Seriously? That's the argument you want to go with?

That's like saying that, as a parent, I have no obligation to consider the legal limits of my disciplinary power when punishing my kids. That's for CPS to worry about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Deporting illegal immigrants?

NOPE!

Article I, Section 8:


Clause 4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

[Cecilie1200]

War on Drugs?

NOPE!

Article I, Section 8:


Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Regulating commerce definitely includes deciding which items are and are not legal to sell in the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

War on Terror?

NOPE!

Article I, Section 8:


Clause 11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

[Cecilie1200]

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
Have you read the Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?

I guess the real question to you should be, "Can you understand English?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.

Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.

Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed.

The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked.
But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've been bad form. It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.

Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case

Seems to me that the point was not a history lesson, but a reminder of what laws and limitations are actually in force, so they can be abided by. I realize that the Democrats wanted to turn this into nothing more than an opportunity to denigrate the United States and quibble about any tangent they could find, but I just don't see facilitating that as a good idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you lie, Neo? I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above. You are not mainstream at all, Neo. But you pretend you are. The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much. Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it? I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true. You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it. Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about

Neo, why when you are caught in a lie, you then imply falsely. That is still a lie. Your points are set up as either or, but the truth is not at either end. That is why you are not mainstream, and that is why you dropped above my request for you to give my mainstream support for your very far right positions. You can't.

America will easily survive you and those who think like you. So support the GOP but your advice won't be taken.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Why do you lie, Neo? I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above. You are not mainstream at all, Neo. But you pretend you are. The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much. Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it? I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true. You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it. Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about

Neo, why when you are caught in a lie, you then imply falsely. That is still a lie. Your points are set up as either or, but the truth is not at either end. That is why you are not mainstream, and that is why you dropped above my request for you to give my mainstream support for your very far right positions. You can't.

America will easily survive you and those who think like you. So support the GOP but your advice won't be taken.

Jake,

It is your story and you can tell it anyway you want and any way
that makes you feel better

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.
Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so

Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?
(that fact that you can not do the above proves my point)

I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.
You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.

Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about
---------------------------------------------------


Here are questions again-pretty straight forward statements
We would not want to forgot because of your editing what they were now

Of course, feel free to answer with exceptions if "either or " does not work for you
The world awaits.... prove where I am telling lies (this should be good)


-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lies mean you state something (such as I believe the above points) when I have said of the sort. That is a lie, Neo.

Nothing in my statements explicitly or implicitly indicate I believe those points. When you say otherwise, that is a lie, Neo.

I don't have to answer your list, but I will ask you to do so. You are not mainstream but a very small part far far to the right, who have no influence, but the GOP will take your vote. Now please clearly answer these, then I will be glad to. We all wait for your answers.

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter

 

[signelect]

Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word. I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone. Remember that courts are run by lawyers. Keep your head down.

 

[signelect]

congress should keep the constitution first in all they do. It is for everyone, not only one like people like to make it.

 

[nraforlife]

Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.

...............................

Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.

American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.

No jake it is only ignorant fools such as YOU who disagree. Bugger off.