"that's not in the constitution!

[Anachronism]

Let's face it. We are never going to turn the clock back to 1776 and abolish half the government. What is needed is a constitution that reflects current and future needs of the country, not life as is was over 200 years ago. We should keep the Bill of Rights and rewrite the rest.

I would agree that we need to rewrite the whole document, from start to finish so that we CAN go back to 1776 and abolish 90% of the government. I wouldn't even keep the Bill of Rights.

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.

 

[Vanquish]

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

all these things are valid, constitutional exercises of power that sometimes result in government...and ARE NOT unconstitutional!

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

 

[RDD_1210]

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

all these things are valid, constitutional exercises of power that sometimes result in government...and ARE NOT unconstitutional!

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

Be careful, otherwise he'll put you on his ignore list.

 

[Oddball]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.

The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).

Lord knows where Fabian socialist thugs like you would've taken this nation, were it not for that list of a few clearly defined "thou shalt nots" slapped on authoritarian central bankster despots like Hamilton.

Now, have the nice man in the white coat give you your daily dose of Thorazine.

 

[jillian]

No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

all these things are valid, constitutional exercises of power that sometimes result in government...and ARE NOT unconstitutional!

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

Be careful, otherwise he'll put you on his ignore list.

is that a promise?

 

[gekaap]

I would agree that we need to rewrite the whole document, from start to finish so that we CAN go back to 1776 and abolish 90% of the government. I wouldn't even keep the Bill of Rights.

That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?

 

[Anachronism]

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?

That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?

Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?

Anything that provides to the general public any of these things:
-Education
-Health care
-Retirement
-Income insurance
-Income supplemental

 

[gekaap]

Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.

Wow, you're advocating the destruction of our country. That is mindnumbing.

They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.

You simply are not willing to accept any federal government at all. You want the federal government to be dissolved, and you try to justify it by claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. Of course, you've already shown your disdain for the constitution by saying we should put the whole thing aside and we should eliminate the constitution's guarantees of freedoms that it promises the people. Kinda hypocritical how you try to invoke the constitution in an attempt to decry it. You refuse to acknowledge the truth, because it doesn't fit into your preordained extremist ideology.

I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?

Then get the **** out and don't come back. This is a debate messageboard. It's not the day care room for whiny little brats who want to throw temper tantrums.

Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.

The only one I see who doesn't deserve American freedoms is you, because you're advocating the destruction of our country, our constitution, and our freedoms. You're the Unabomer, McVeigh, and bin Laden all rolled up into one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?

That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?

Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.

Somalia is an option.
Bye-Bye.

 

[Immanuel]

I would agree that we need to rewrite the whole document, from start to finish so that we CAN go back to 1776 and abolish 90% of the government. I wouldn't even keep the Bill of Rights.

That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?

I actually think that it is time to rewrite the Constitution to cover the myriads of changes in technology and the world over the last 235 years.

The unfortunate thing is that I would not trust one of the bastards in Washington DC regardless of party to be on the committee that rewrote it. Therefore, I think we must live with what we have been given for as long as we can and pray that those in Washington don't continue to shred it and use it as their personal toilet paper.

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

Wow, you're advocating the destruction of our country. That is mindnumbing.

Actually at this point I'm pretty much advocating the extinction of the human species entirely. We've become nothing more than a walking, talking version of the Bubonic Plague.

You simply are not willing to accept any federal government at all. You want the federal government to be dissolved, and you try to justify it by claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. Of course, you've already shown your disdain for the constitution by saying we should put the whole thing aside and we should eliminate the constitution's guarantees of freedoms that it promises the people. Kinda hypocritical how you try to invoke the constitution in an attempt to decry it. You refuse to acknowledge the truth, because it doesn't fit into your preordained extremist ideology.

I have no problem with a Federal Government..... A SMALL Federal Government where the STATES hold most of the power (as our Forefathers intended). I also believe that citizenship comes with Duties and Responsibilities that need to be adhered to in order to EARN the Rights and Privileges that come with Citizenship.

Then get the **** out and don't come back. This is a debate messageboard. It's not the day care room for whiny little brats who want to throw temper tantrums.

No, this is a DISCUSSION board. There is a difference between Discussion and Debate. I have no problem with Discussion; it's Debate that I see no point in.

The only one I see who doesn't deserve American freedoms is you, because you're advocating the destruction of our country, our constitution, and our freedoms. You're the Unabomer, McVeigh, and bin Laden all rolled up into one.

To a certain degree you're right.... I'm also the descendent of some other radicals.... people who picked up their muskets on 4/18/1775 and headed for Cambridge, MA. People who chose to go South and fight for the Confederacy during the War of Northern Aggression. My family has never really been fond of the Government trying to tell us what to do and how to live our lives.

 

[Anachronism]

Somalia is an option. Bye-Bye.

If they actually had a functional society, yes they would be. As would Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and a number of other Middle Eastern countries if they didn't have the bans on firearms ownership and restrictions on non-Muslims. Who knows, maybe out of all this chaos over there a new option will arise for me. Maybe Egypt.

 

[Sallow]

I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?

I can't find the words "supercarrier", "stealth bomber" or "attack drone" in the Constitution either. Hmmmmmmm

God, not that smelly old red herring again.


But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...

To raise and support Armies..

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To...exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

You left out a few things..

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

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I find those omissions odd, especially since you cut one clause in half.

Now why was that?

 

[Sallow]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.

The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).

Lord knows where Fabian socialist thugs like you would've taken this nation, were it not for that list of a few clearly defined "thou shalt nots" slapped on authoritarian central bankster despots like Hamilton.

Now, have the nice man in the white coat give you your daily dose of Thorazine.

The Federalist Papers were a series of Opinions and Editorials meant to get citizens on board with the revolution. Most notably the people of New York.

While they are interesting and add "some" insight..they are not were legislation is drawn from.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?

IRS, Federal Reserve, Corporations are not checked under the Constitution as the Government is under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protections of the law to all persons.

It is not that these things should be killed off, but followed and funded voluntarily; or else citizens and states should set up their own systems to be checked under Constitutional laws.

One thing I find necessary that is not expressly stated in the Constitution or Amendments is "consent of the governed" which is the basis of all binding social contracts or laws.

I believe all citizens and corporations should follow the same Constitutional laws and ethics as government in order to invoke rights and freedoms under the law. If every institution did that, then all policies and funding would reflect the consent of the people affected, and any conflicts would be resolved by mediation and consensus on corrections and restitution, so all interests are protected and represented equally, instead of corruption and abuses that waste public resources. ethics-commission.net

 

[Oddball]

The Federalist Papers were a series of Opinions and Editorials meant to get citizens on board with the revolution. Most notably the people of New York.

While they are interesting and add "some" insight..they are not were legislation is drawn from.

Federalist #41, which was written by the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, spelled out in no uncertain and/or opinionated terms what was meant by "general welfare".

Sorry to cheat by using the actual words of the people who made the clarifications.

 

[Oddball]

I can't find the words "supercarrier", "stealth bomber" or "attack drone" in the Constitution either. Hmmmmmmm

God, not that smelly old red herring again.


But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...

You left out a few things..

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

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I find those omissions odd, especially since you cut one clause in half.

Now why was that?

Because those were the parts that mattered for the purposes of the current conversation....The truncations did nothing to change the context or meaning of the given passages.

Sheesh.

 

[Vanquish]

Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...

Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!

They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.

Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.

I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?

That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?

Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.

There you go. You just explained why no one should listen to you on this topic EVER.

EVAR

You don't know what stare decisis is? Or how the case law in our country is based on ripe, non-political issues coming in front of courts...and creating a body of common law that, within the confines of the constitution, creates our country, its laws, and serves as a framework for what we have in place now?

Since you dont (you don't have to assume I'm right on the topic you don't understand - just ask anyone on this board about how case law works)...you really just need to sit at the kiddie table and not talk now.

Wow. Just wow. You seriously want to tell people what's constitutional when you don't know how the thing works?

This is the head-in-your-ass mentality of people with a ******* mantra like "it aint in da constitution!"

Agencies exist because CONGRESS has the power (see it's a check and balance) to create them. And the Executive actually runs them. See how that works? Idiots (not even useful ones) like Glenn Beck and Bachmann get you simpletons frothing at the idea of "it aint in there!! it aint in there!!" and they pin it on Barack wanting to take power. Little do you know...it came from the people that you voted in.

Gawd this country's education system is pathetic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.

The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).

Lord knows where Fabian socialist thugs like you would've taken this nation, were it not for that list of a few clearly defined "thou shalt nots" slapped on authoritarian central bankster despots like Hamilton.

Now, have the nice man in the white coat give you your daily dose of Thorazine.

Thank you professor Odd-dude. Have your considered opinons been vetted by other 'professionals'? What say the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker?