See: Red herring.A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?
Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.
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.
See: Red herring.A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?
Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.
A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?
Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.
See: Red herring.A missile silo isn't an arsenal in what way?
Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.
Not even.See: Red herring.Weird, I don't see "Missile Silo" in the constitution either.
or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Not even.See: Red herring.
or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?
I'm pretty sure the military is an enumerated power. Show me Earned Income Tax Credit.
Our constitution set out for us to be ruled by a myriad of overreaching regulatory agencies with the power to pass laws willy nilly?
Who knew?
Not even.See: Red herring.
or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
James Madison...y'know the principal author of the Constitution...disagrees.Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?
From Federalist #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Our constitution set out for us to be ruled by a myriad of overreaching regulatory agencies with the power to pass laws willy nilly?
Who knew?
What you may call over reaching is irrelevant. They are operating within their constitutional powers, as departments of the executive branch of the government. Your claim that the executive branch passes "willy nilly" laws is simply an outright lie and you know it. Congress makes laws. The executive branch enforces those laws.
It's a completely silly-assed argument, which nuts like you still take seriously.Not even.or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
Actually my "silly as argument" is highlighting your blatant hypocrisy. You guys love to spout that if it's not in the constitution, then we shouldn't bother with it. However, you seem to be arguing that Nuclear weapons, the air force and other military expenditures that aren't specifically mentioned are acceptable because they are assumed as a part of the greater common defense language.
I actually agree with that, but that should also apply to other areas as well, such as ensuring the health of our citizens which would fall under "General welfare".
So either the constitution has to explicitly mention something or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Although, I'm sure you'll continue to try.
So are Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.James Madison...y'know the principal author of the Constitution...disagrees.Oddball, you won't be happy until the federal government ceases to exist. You think that everything the federal government does has to be explicitly listed in the constitution? Well, that's not how it works. That's not the system of government that our constitution set out for us. It's clear that you don't like our country or our government, and you want something completely different. So why don't you move somewhere else?
From Federalist #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
James Madison is dead.
I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?
Ooooo...He wants a list.
The Departments of Energy, Commerce, Labor, Education, a central bank, HHS, HUD, EPA, FHA, BLM, TVA, FDA, DEA, ATF, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, CPB/NPR/PBS/, EEOC, ONDCP, Ad Council, NRC....
Need more, or is that a good enough start for you?
Not even.or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?
"To provide and maintain a Navy;" isn't specific enough?Not even.or according to your rules, unconstitutional.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?
Silly because you avoid addressing the hypocrisy? So which is it? The constitution has to explicitly state something is constitutional or it doesn't?It's a completely silly-assed argument, which nuts like you still take seriously.Not even.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
Actually my "silly as argument" is highlighting your blatant hypocrisy. You guys love to spout that if it's not in the constitution, then we shouldn't bother with it. However, you seem to be arguing that Nuclear weapons, the air force and other military expenditures that aren't specifically mentioned are acceptable because they are assumed as a part of the greater common defense language.
I actually agree with that, but that should also apply to other areas as well, such as ensuring the health of our citizens which would fall under "General welfare".
So either the constitution has to explicitly mention something or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Although, I'm sure you'll continue to try.
Madison also covered the general welfare clause in Federalist 41....Your "interpretation" of it runs exactly counter to its intent.
Not even.
Your absolutely silly-assed argument basically boils down to:
"Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about aircraft carriers and nukes, so food stamps and NPR must be constitutional!"
It'd be comical if y'all weren't serious.
It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional?
"It's comical to see how partisan your interpretation of our CONUS is. IF super carriers and other offensive weapons are not spelled out in the CONUS, how can they be Constitutional"
because cons are very quick to point out the unconstitutionality of anything they oppose
by stating "that is NOT in the constitution so it IS UNconstitutional"
like: separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution