"that's not in the constitution!

[Oddball]

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.

Dred Scott was "stare decisis", junior....Want me to cut up your ham for you?

Gawd this country's education system is pathetic.

How could that be, with a federal Department of Edumacation running the show?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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;

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

Same part that Covers the Army.

 

[Oddball]

God, not that smelly old red herring again.


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

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

Same part that Covers the Army.

It's one of the smelliest of rotten red herrings they toss out there.

As I already mentioned, the Constitution doesn't mention artillery or cavalry either. Yet, both of those were in common usage at the time of the founding.

I believe one of the "living Constitution" windbags around here said something about ....This is an inadvertent example of what they were talking about.

 

[Vanquish]

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.

Dred Scott was "stare decisis", junior....Want me to cut up your ham for you?

Gawd this country's education system is pathetic.

How could that be, with a federal Department of Edumacation running the show?

Yes, and? I didn't say it came from anywhere else. We weren't discussing the SOURCE of stare decisis...we were discussing the EFFECT.

This fool wants to dismiss anything not in the constitution when that's not the only source of law and the changes in government.

Agencies exist as created by Congress and administered by the Executive Branch. They didn't just come out of someone's dreamland. The Founding Fathers expected such...and wrote it in.

 

[Oddball]

Not everything has been challenged in the courts. And other decisions like Dred Scott and Kelo are total abominations.

Like I said, you answer basically boils down to; "sue us if you don't like it".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Agencies exist as created by Congress and administered by the Executive Branch. They didn't just come out of someone's dreamland. The Founding Fathers expected such...and wrote it in.

Yes... but these agencies must be created pursuant to a power granted by the Constitution, as noted in the Elastic Clause.

The Constitution grants no power whatsoever to the Federal government in any number of areas - education, for example.

W/o any power to do anything regarding education, Congress has no power to create a depoartment of Education.

Et cetera.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure they did.

A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

You seem to be under the incredibly mistaken notion that I CARE about case law, legal precedents or anything of that sort. I don't and I never have. I am interested in only one thing... RIGHT and WRONG. These have nothing to do with laws, case law, or legal precedents. They have everything to do with Values, Morals, and Decency. Three things this country hasn't had any interest in for over 150 years.

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.

I don't vote people IN or OUT. In the average year, I MAY cast a vote for a candidate in one or two or the races on the ballot. Often times I won't cast a vote for any candidate on the ballot. I'll simply respond to the ballot questions and leave the rest of the ballot blank, because there is nobody on it worthy of my vote. Besides, I'm not a big fan of voting as a means for bringing about change in the system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders

Except for the fact that they wrote the power to create that very thing directly into the Constitution.

 

[Immanuel]

Not everything has been challenged in the courts. And other decisions like Dred Scott and Kelo are total abominations.

Like I said, you answer basically boils down to; "sue us if you don't like it".

You only think that Kelo is a total abomination because you are not the developer that stole that land.

Immie

 

[Oddball]

Sure they did.

A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power....Only that the funding and maintenance issues are limited to two-year bills.

Even so, if the feds are indeed s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the meaning of that specifically enumerated power (which I also believe that they are, BTW), how in the hell do you think that bodes for the vagaries like "general welfare"...Hmmmmmmm?

 

[RDD_1210]

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

Same part that Covers the Army.

It's one of the smelliest of rotten red herrings they toss out there.

As I already mentioned, the Constitution doesn't mention artillery or cavalry either. Yet, both of those were in common usage at the time of the founding.

I believe one of the "living Constitution" windbags around here said something about ....This is an inadvertent example of what they were talking about.

So like has already been pointed out 100000x in this thread, something doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the constitution to be "constitutional". Thanks for proving the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure they did.
A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power.

Are't liberals a hoot?
When considering things that they don't like, with the power to do those things written literally into the Constitution, they argue that there's no federal power for those things.

When considering things that they DO like, with the power to do those things nowhere to be found in the Constitution, they argue that there's clearly a federal power for those things.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sure they did.
A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power.

Are't liberals a hoot?
When considering things that they don't like, with the power to do those things written literally into the Constitution, they argue that there's no federal power for those things.

When considering things that they DO like, with the power to do those things nowhere to be found in the Constitution, they argue that there's clearly a federal power for those things.

This conversation is clearly too advanced for you. You might want to lie back down.

 

[Oddball]

Same part that Covers the Army.

It's one of the smelliest of rotten red herrings they toss out there.

As I already mentioned, the Constitution doesn't mention artillery or cavalry either. Yet, both of those were in common usage at the time of the founding.

I believe one of the "living Constitution" windbags around here said something about ....This is an inadvertent example of what they were talking about.

So like has already been pointed out 100000x in this thread, something doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the constitution to be "constitutional". Thanks for proving the point.

The mentioned military equipment is for the specifically enumerated federal role of national defense, not as an Orwellian semantic contortion of "general welfare" and/or "interstate commerce".

Time to charter a new fishing boat...Your red herrings have rotted to the point of inedibility.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So like has already been pointed out 100000x in this thread, something doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the constitution to be "constitutional". Thanks for proving the point.

No... but there must be a power that directly relates to those things for those things to be constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power.

Are't liberals a hoot?
When considering things that they don't like, with the power to do those things written literally into the Constitution, they argue that there's no federal power for those things.

When considering things that they DO like, with the power to do those things nowhere to be found in the Constitution, they argue that there's clearly a federal power for those things.

This conversation is clearly too advanced for you. You might want to lie back down.

Your inability to create a coherent response to my post says all that needs to be said.
Thanks for playing.

 

[Sallow]

Sure they did.

A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power....Only that the funding and maintenance issues are limited to two-year bills.

Even so, if the feds are indeed s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the meaning of that specifically enumerated power (which I also believe that they are, BTW), how in the hell do you think that bodes for the vagaries like "general welfare"...Hmmmmmmm?

No..it means that the army was never meant to be permanent. The Continental Army was disbanded after the revolution. And the system was meant to be voluntary...and as needed. It was meant to be drawn from militias..and de-centralized.

You cherry pick Madison as well. He wasn't just worried about centralized Federal power..he was worried about concentrating power in general.

"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." - James Madison

 

[percysunshine]

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

Free sex with super models is not in the Constitution, but I suspect it is being funded under the Spitzer ammendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure they did.

A standing army under federal control was never the original intent of the founders. As in..the spending should never be counted as mandatory. Only the navy is mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that the funding and maintaining of an army isn't an enumerated federal power....Only that the funding and maintenance issues are limited to two-year bills.

Even so, if the feds are indeed s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the meaning of that specifically enumerated power (which I also believe that they are, BTW), how in the hell do you think that bodes for the vagaries like "general welfare"...Hmmmmmmm?

No..it means that the army was never meant to be permanent.

You have said this 1000 times.
You have never, ever, supported this statement w/ anything in the Constitution.

And the system was meant to be voluntary...and as needed. It was meant to be drawn from militias..and de-centralized.

You have said this 1000 times.
You have never, ever, supported this statement w/ anything in the Constitution.