The 11th does not say what you claim it says. LOL good god you are insane.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hOh Annie
you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple
explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it
because its an implied power
obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything
Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper
sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper
Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government
The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws
The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that
yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution
Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane
everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power
".... implied power..."
What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.
I win again, huh?
Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence
The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't
Is the court just ignoring you
they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power
But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument
implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power
The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court
boom goes the
dynamite
Of course I won.
You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.
h
".... implied power..."
What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.
I win again, huh?
Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence
The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't
Is the court just ignoring you
they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power
But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument
implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power
The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court
boom goes the
dynamite
Of course I won.
You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.
But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.
So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.
And the rest is history. Pity.
Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence
The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't
Is the court just ignoring you
they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power
But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument
implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power
The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court
boom goes the
dynamite
Of course I won.
You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "
Exactly what I said.
So you admit that I was correct from the start:
. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
Now.....why are you back?
You STILL have not answered the question.Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.
Of course I won.
You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "
Exactly what I said.
So you admit that I was correct from the start:
. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
Now.....why are you back?
The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong
Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???
You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review
Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution
So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something
Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong
The constitution say
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that
Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal
Do you disagree now
Do you accept the meaning of implied
You STILL have not answered the question.Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.
Of course I won.
You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "
Exactly what I said.
So you admit that I was correct from the start:
. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
Now.....why are you back?
The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong
Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???
You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review
Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution
So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something
Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong
The constitution say
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that
Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal
Do you disagree now
Do you accept the meaning of implied
SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.
It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.
And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.
It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.
The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.
I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.
Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.
And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.
It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.
The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.
I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.
Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.
Oh annie
Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up
The constitution is just the basis
The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.
why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff
not the president
why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power
Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall
There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated 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.
tap dance to that tune
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "
Exactly what I said.
So you admit that I was correct from the start:
. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
Now.....why are you back?
The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong
Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???
You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review
Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution
So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something
Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong
The constitution say
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that
Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal
Do you disagree now
Do you accept the meaning of implied
"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."
OMG!!!
How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!
???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!
Look up what 'implied' means.
Try to stick to words you can define.
Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.
Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya
Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is
"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "
Exactly what I said.
So you admit that I was correct from the start:
. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
Now.....why are you back?
The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong
Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???
You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review
Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution
So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something
Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong
The constitution say
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that
Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal
Do you disagree now
Do you accept the meaning of implied
"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."
OMG!!!
How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!
???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!
Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong
and does not want to answer the question put before her
As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????
besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type
You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond
And you can not even articulate any thing that goes against the WORDS of the Constitution. Be specific now and explain slowly for the class how the 11th amendment PREVENTS the Supreme Court from hearing and ruling on Federal Cases.And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.
It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.
The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.
I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.
Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.
The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.
It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and you accept that due to a lack of understanding.
Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.
“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
These posts will advance your education.
And you can not even articulate any thing that goes against the WORDS of the Constitution. Be specific now and explain slowly for the class how the 11th amendment PREVENTS the Supreme Court from hearing and ruling on Federal Cases.And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.
It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.
The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.
I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.
Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.
The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.
It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and you accept that due to a lack of understanding.
Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.
“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
These posts will advance your education.