Rep. Kucinich (D). Good looking wife...dumb as a box of hammers.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You assume that everyone knows that drugs are bad for them.

I also assume that anyone who gets behind the wheel knows they could potentially die a horrible death. Regardless of whether this assumption is right or wrong, freedom is preferable to having the government babysit everything we do.

Doesn't address unenumerated powers, but I like it.

I've looked for all of these unenumerated powers in the Constitution, but I couldn't find any.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I also assume that anyone who gets behind the wheel knows they could potentially die a horrible death. Regardless of whether this assumption is right or wrong, freedom is preferable to having the government babysit everything we do.

Doesn't address unenumerated powers, but I like it.

I've looked for all of these unenumerated powers in the Constitution, but I couldn't find any.

Don't worry, the 9th amendment covers them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Doesn't address unenumerated powers, but I like it.

I've looked for all of these unenumerated powers in the Constitution, but I couldn't find any.

Don't worry, the 9th amendment covers them.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Strange, then, that it only mentions the rights of people and not the powers of the government. And, of course, the 10th Amendment blasts a whole in that theory completely.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I've looked for all of these unenumerated powers in the Constitution, but I couldn't find any.

Don't worry, the 9th amendment covers them.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Strange, then, that it only mentions the rights of people and not the powers of the government. And, of course, the 10th Amendment blasts a whole in that theory completely.

You mean a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Don't worry, the 9th amendment covers them.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Strange, then, that it only mentions the rights of people and not the powers of the government. And, of course, the 10th Amendment blasts a whole in that theory completely.

You mean a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Yes. And the people making up the government have their individual rights protected by the 9th Amendment, but, once again, that does not give the government itself the power to do whatever it pleases.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I can't believe I'm supporting the communist Kucinich, but, HE'S RIGHT! The "war powers" IS clear in the Constitution.

And the Hobbit's wife ain't that great-looking either.

Sorry Wao...you're WRONG. The House and Senate passed a law AUTHORIZING the troop deployment until such time as the mission is completed. EVERY single time the Congress authorizes funds for the war in A'stan...the law is RENEWED!!

The mission is completed? What mission is that and what would winning look like.

Or is this just going to be another Columbia, Cashmere, Nigeria, Palestine, Tibet, etc. where the war will never stop.

Look for the Tamil thing to pop up again also.

 

[JiggsCasey]

more self-loathing projected by tired, unoriginal con men.

Elizabeth Kucinich is actually exceedingly smart, and if the reactionary original poster ever heard her speak, he would know that. Undoubtedly, she could debate circles around any of the usual Bush League suspects in this thread.

Oops, NOT "dumb as a box of hammers" at all.... Likely much smarter than you, tool box.

Born Elizabeth Harper, Kucinich was brought up in North Ockendon in the London Borough of Havering. In 1996 she went to Agra, India, to volunteer at one of Mother Teresa's homes for India's poorest children.[1] Upon earning her bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Kent at Canterbury, she spent 16 months in a rural Tanzanian village and worked as an advocate for regional development.[1]

After leaving Tanzania, she volunteered with a British Red Cross refugee unit; earned a certificate in Peace Studies from Coventry University; and got a job as a fund-raiser for a seafarer's charity in London.[1] Her volunteer work often brought her to the House of Lords.[1] At that time she heard financial analyst Stephen Zarlenga speak about monetary reform. She was impressed and soon was hired to become Zarlenga's assistant at the Chicago-based American Monetary Institute.[1] That work took her and Zarlenga to Dennis Kucinich's office.[1]

She married Dennis Kucinich in 2005, in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. The Sunday Times noted that one of her heroines is Diana, Princess of Wales, partly for her bringing "compassion back into public life."[2] She is noted as having her tongue pierced with a silver stud.[3] Like her husband Dennis, Elizabeth is a vegan.[4][5]

Currently, she is director of public affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.​

As usual, after any claim by the right wingnuts, you merely need only dig a little deeper to see that it's all bull****

STFU

 

[Xenophon]

I agree with him, we should leave now.

 

[editec]

The board resident hardons really do think that character assassination can replace thinking, Jiggs.

Not their faults, really.

They're emulating what they see on TV.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Kucinich is always good for a laugh....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

more self-loathing projected by tired, unoriginal con men.

Elizabeth Kucinich is actually exceedingly smart, and if the reactionary original poster ever heard her speak, he would know that. Undoubtedly, she could debate circles around any of the usual Bush League suspects in this thread.

Oops, NOT "dumb as a box of hammers" at all.... Likely much smarter than you, tool box.

Born Elizabeth Harper, Kucinich was brought up in North Ockendon in the London Borough of Havering. In 1996 she went to Agra, India, to volunteer at one of Mother Teresa's homes for India's poorest children.[1] Upon earning her bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Kent at Canterbury, she spent 16 months in a rural Tanzanian village and worked as an advocate for regional development.[1]

After leaving Tanzania, she volunteered with a British Red Cross refugee unit; earned a certificate in Peace Studies from Coventry University; and got a job as a fund-raiser for a seafarer's charity in London.[1] Her volunteer work often brought her to the House of Lords.[1] At that time she heard financial analyst Stephen Zarlenga speak about monetary reform. She was impressed and soon was hired to become Zarlenga's assistant at the Chicago-based American Monetary Institute.[1] That work took her and Zarlenga to Dennis Kucinich's office.[1]

She married Dennis Kucinich in 2005, in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. The Sunday Times noted that one of her heroines is Diana, Princess of Wales, partly for her bringing "compassion back into public life."[2] She is noted as having her tongue pierced with a silver stud.[3] Like her husband Dennis, Elizabeth is a vegan.[4][5]

Currently, she is director of public affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.​

As usual, after any claim by the right wingnuts, you merely need only dig a little deeper to see that it's all bull****

STFU

You need to learn how to read and comprehend simple english you STUPID ****!!!!! Reread the title and OP then.....you STFU!!!

 

[mal]

I can't believe I'm supporting the communist Kucinich, but, HE'S RIGHT! The "war powers" IS clear in the Constitution.

And the Hobbit's wife ain't that great-looking either.

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the **** up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can't believe I'm supporting the communist Kucinich, but, HE'S RIGHT! The "war powers" IS clear in the Constitution.

And the Hobbit's wife ain't that great-looking either.

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the **** up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I can't believe I'm supporting the communist Kucinich, but, HE'S RIGHT! The "war powers" IS clear in the Constitution.

And the Hobbit's wife ain't that great-looking either.

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the **** up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Oh really...why don't you dig their asses up and fill them in on what's been happening in this country for the last 200 years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Congress has Authorized each...

It is the Job of Congress to Undo it, or Shut the **** up.

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are Violations of the Constitution or US Law.

As for an "Official Declaration of War" as those who want to Stop these Wars Claim didn't happen...

There is NO Requirement in the US Constitution that a "Declaration of War" be in Place to Activate Military Action.

It's just a Power that Resides with the Congress if they Choose to Use it.



peace...

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Oh really...why don't you dig their asses up and fill them in on what's been happening in this country for the last 200 years.

I'm not sure that talking to skeletons or whatever their bodies have become would be a productive use of my time to be honest. Not to mention that I don't condone grave-robbing.

 

[Ragnar]

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.

"The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature." – James Madison

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Oh really...why don't you dig their asses up and fill them in on what's been happening in this country for the last 200 years.

I'm not sure that talking to skeletons or whatever their bodies have become would be a productive use of my time to be honest. Not to mention that I don't condone grave-robbing.

Thank you....you just made my point for me. You're wasting your time with all of this "well it's unconstitutional" horseshit. Whatever the Supreme Court says is constitutional...is constitutional....not some poster on a message board.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh really...why don't you dig their asses up and fill them in on what's been happening in this country for the last 200 years.

I'm not sure that talking to skeletons or whatever their bodies have become would be a productive use of my time to be honest. Not to mention that I don't condone grave-robbing.

Thank you....you just made my point for me. You're wasting your time with all of this "well it's unconstitutional" horseshit. Whatever the Supreme Court say is constitutional...is constitutional....not some poster on a message board.

I'm aware that the Supreme Court holds a monopoly on what it deems "constitutional," but that doesn't change the fact that what the Supreme Court calls "constitutional law" and what the Constitution says are at odds quite a bit. But if what the Supreme Court says is the gospel, I'm curious what your opinion of Roe v. Wade is. You strike me as a fairly conservative poster, but if you truly believe what you say you must support Roe v. Wade right?

At any rate, if my posting on this message board is a waste of time, are you not wasting your own time as well?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm not sure that talking to skeletons or whatever their bodies have become would be a productive use of my time to be honest. Not to mention that I don't condone grave-robbing.

Thank you....you just made my point for me. You're wasting your time with all of this "well it's unconstitutional" horseshit. Whatever the Supreme Court say is constitutional...is constitutional....not some poster on a message board.

I'm aware that the Supreme Court holds a monopoly on what it deems "constitutional," but that doesn't change the fact that what the Supreme Court calls "constitutional law" and what the Constitution says are at odds quite a bit. But if what the Supreme Court says is the gospel, I'm curious what your opinion of Roe v. Wade is. You strike me as a fairly conservative poster, but if you truly believe what you say you must support Roe v. Wade right?

At any rate, if my posting on this message board is a waste of time, are you not wasting your own time as well?

Apparently not if I got you to agree with my position.

My opinion of RvW hasn't got shit to do with what's constitutional. If you are so bent on being a constitutional scholar and strict interpreter of the document then perhaps you should run for office on that platform and tell me how it works out. (See Ron Paul)

and for the record...I'm pro-choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thank you....you just made my point for me. You're wasting your time with all of this "well it's unconstitutional" horseshit. Whatever the Supreme Court say is constitutional...is constitutional....not some poster on a message board.

I'm aware that the Supreme Court holds a monopoly on what it deems "constitutional," but that doesn't change the fact that what the Supreme Court calls "constitutional law" and what the Constitution says are at odds quite a bit. But if what the Supreme Court says is the gospel, I'm curious what your opinion of Roe v. Wade is. You strike me as a fairly conservative poster, but if you truly believe what you say you must support Roe v. Wade right?

At any rate, if my posting on this message board is a waste of time, are you not wasting your own time as well?

Apparently not if I got you to agree with my position.

My opinion of RvW hasn't got shit to do with what's constitutional. If you are so bent on being a constitutional scholar and strict interpreter of the document then perhaps you should run for office on that platform and tell me how it works out. (See Ron Paul)

and for the record...I'm pro-choice.

I'm not sure where you think I've begun to agree with you on any subject we've broached upon here in this thread so far. I'm still against the war, still believe it was unconstitutional, and still believe that the Supreme Court violates the Constitution by giving itself the sole power to decide what is or is not constitutional. So if I'm wasting my time, then you would still have to be wasting your time.

I'm too young to run for office federally as Ron Paul does. I'm not sure government is where I ultimately want to end up, however. Not to mention the fact that my getting elected would be nothing short of miraculous.

Interesting. Then I guess my Roe v. Wade question is out the window then. That's the problem with assumptions, I suppose.