"that's not in the constitution!

[RDD_1210]

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.

Oh, so Nuclear weapons are a defense item? This is the whole, "the best defense is a strong offense" argument? You're stretching the meaning of defense to fit your needs. How pathetic can you get?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure I have.

And in many threads.

 

[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?

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

In case you had troble comprehending me, let me make it perfectly clear...


I.....get....it.

I...happen....to....agree....with....you....in....this....particular....instance.

Now, how do you think that the bastardization of original intent, viz. military appropriations and operations, which were much more specifically spelled out than were "general welfare" and "interstate commerce", serves as a model for the legislative chicanery built upon the shifting sands of those vagaries?

C'mon.....Honestly.

 

[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....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

OddDude cherry picks quotes to fit his agenda? I don't believe it!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Sure I have.
And in many threads.

No, you have not.
If you think you have, then you should have no issue doing so here.

 

[Sallow]

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

In case you had troble comprehending me, let me make it perfectly clear...


I.....get....it.

I...happen....to....agree....with....you....in....this....particular....instance.

Now, how do you think that the bastardization of original intent, viz. military appropriations and operations, which were much more specifically spelled out than were "general welfare" and "interstate commerce", serves as a model for the legislative chicanery built upon the shifting sands of those vagaries?

C'mon.....Honestly.

Honestly?

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

Honestly.

 

[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.

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.

Oh, so Nuclear weapons are a defense item? T

Their inclusion as a 'defense item' is obvious to anyone that manged to pass 1st grade.

The irony, you saying that this conversation is clearly too advanced for -me-

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

What you fail to comprehend is that there's nothing about original intent that precludes a constitution interpreted thru that intent from meeting any and every challenge in the present and in the future.

-Every- situation you care to think of is handled by a Constitution filtered thru that intent.

 

[Oddball]

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.

In case you had troble comprehending me, let me make it perfectly clear...


I.....get....it.

I...happen....to....agree....with....you....in....this....particular....instance.

Now, how do you think that the bastardization of original intent, viz. military appropriations and operations, which were much more specifically spelled out than were "general welfare" and "interstate commerce", serves as a model for the legislative chicanery built upon the shifting sands of those vagaries?

C'mon.....Honestly.

Honestly?

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

Honestly.

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

That aside, if you really believe all that nebulous swill about "meet(ing) the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome", why is it you even bother paying the Constitution the lip service you do?

 

[RDD_1210]

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

What you fail to comprehend is that there's nothing about original intent that precludes a constitution interpreted thru that intent from meeting any and every challenge in the present and in the future.

-Every- situation you care to think of is handled by a Constitution filtered thru that intent.

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

 

[RDD_1210]

In case you had troble comprehending me, let me make it perfectly clear...


I.....get....it.

I...happen....to....agree....with....you....in....this....particular....instance.

Now, how do you think that the bastardization of original intent, viz. military appropriations and operations, which were much more specifically spelled out than were "general welfare" and "interstate commerce", serves as a model for the legislative chicanery built upon the shifting sands of those vagaries?

C'mon.....Honestly.

Honestly?

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

Honestly.

Oh, bullshit....Do you have any idea how completely arrogant that "the founders were a bunch of provincial rubes" argument sounds?

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are not in a country of 13 states. We've grown a great deal and live in an extremely intricate and complicated world. In order to meet the challenges of the present and the future we must be able to deal with issue in a robust and timely manner that leaves our interests with the best possible outcome.

These arguments about "original intent" are for the most part..very silly.

What you fail to comprehend is that there's nothing about original intent that precludes a constitution interpreted thru that intent from meeting any and every challenge in the present and in the future.
-Every- situation you care to think of is handled by a Constitution filtered thru that intent.

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this.
Thus, Amendment X applies.

 

[RDD_1210]

What you fail to comprehend is that there's nothing about original intent that precludes a constitution interpreted thru that intent from meeting any and every challenge in the present and in the future.
-Every- situation you care to think of is handled by a Constitution filtered thru that intent.

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this. Thus, Amendment X applies.

LOL, like I said....this is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep old man.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton discounts himself, as he often contradicts what he says, in order to support whatever it is he wants at the moment.

No wonder he's the patron saint of the left.

 

[percysunshine]

Frankly, this is a whole bruhaha over who controls Congress. It will take at least another 2 years to resolve.

 

[jillian]

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton discounts himself, as he often contradicts what he says, in order to support whatever it is he wants at the moment.

No wonder he's the patron saint of the left.

it doesn't matter either way. their musings aren't law, no matter how much the pretend constitutionalists want them to be.

loons.

 

[RDD_1210]

Arrogant? Similar to how you discount Hamilton and his viewpoints?

Hamilton discounts himself, as he often contradicts what he says, in order to support whatever it is he wants at the moment.

No wonder he's the patron saint of the left.

LOL, post anything that supports what you're claiming. ANYTHING.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this. Thus, Amendment X applies.

LOL, like I said....this is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep old man.

What's that? No effective counter to my statemet?
Can't tell me hw I am wrong?
I thought not.

 

[RDD_1210]

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this. Thus, Amendment X applies.

LOL, like I said....this is way too much for you to handle. Go back to sleep old man.

What's that? No effective counter to my statemet?
Can't tell me hw I am wrong?
I thought not.

I could try....AGAIN, but why would I, you clearly wouldn't understand.

 

[jillian]

What you fail to comprehend is that there's nothing about original intent that precludes a constitution interpreted thru that intent from meeting any and every challenge in the present and in the future.
-Every- situation you care to think of is handled by a Constitution filtered thru that intent.

Ooooh, so General Welfare can include things such as ensuring the health/welfare of the people?

If you were able to comprehend what I said, you would not have to ask this question.

No such power is granted to the federal government, and there was never any intent for the federal government to do this.
Thus, Amendment X applies.

There was an intent that the federal government be able to act in furtherance of the general welfare. That right is not constrained and the courts have construed it broadly.

you don't just get to make up what you *think* the constitution says.