U.S. Army should take control of American Govmnt, From President Obama.

[Contumacious]

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional"..

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

 

[CurveLight]

BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | No-fly zones: The legal position

So do we side with our own Government or do we side with the enemies of our government?

That is the true question.

I will side with the USA.

The true question is how do we articulate the layers and depths of irony that are incontrovertibly braided in the amalgamation of a nation based on the ideas of America with the blind loyalty of the spiritual kinship of a State best found in Mussolini's library?

(if anybody understands what that means would you let me know asap? Thanks.)

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course not.

We are being presently governed by a welfare/warfare state. Those who are the recipient of federal largesse are in hog heaven.

Taxpayers and those having to subsidize the behemoth are not fairing so well.

capisce?


.

Si, io capisco.

But even this is a false premise.

"Blue States" pay more in taxes and receive less in federal funding than "Red States", per capita. This is an easily checkable fact.

Red States also have more representation per capita than Blue States.

So, if anything, the very people that have been yelling the loudest are the ones benefitting from "unequal taxation without equal representation".

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Fair enough. Apology accepted. Edit it, and I will edit mine. ~BH

Done.

Same here. Isn't being reasonable fun? Thanks bro. ~BH

 

[Contumacious]

Of course not.

We are being presently governed by a welfare/warfare state. Those who are the recipient of federal largesse are in hog heaven.

Taxpayers and those having to subsidize the behemoth are not fairing so well.

capisce?


.

Si, io capisco.

But even this is a false premise.

"Blue States" pay more in taxes and receive less in federal funding than "Red States", per capita. This is an easily checkable fact.

Red States also have more representation per capita than Blue States.

So, if anything, the very people that have been yelling the loudest are the ones benefitting from "unequal taxation without equal representation".

There parasites in all the states.

.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional"..

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

and the second is the 16th Admendment to the constitution, which reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In addition, as I previously mentioned, the people who are complaining about their "wealth being redistributed" are specifically the people whom wealth has been being redistributed to over the past 50 years or so, through inequalities in federal funding and taxation in various regions.

 

[Vast LWC]

There parasites in all the states.

.

While that is true, if we are to break it down, it would seem that Republicans are larger "parasites" than Democrats, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Since the folks that are actually paying the bills aren't complaining, this argument is weak at best.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional"..

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

OK, we'll go through this again. What is the punctuation mark after the word States?

It isn't a period is it? It's a semi-colon isn't it? That means that the clauses listed after the semi-colon give definition to the general thought. This makes the clause you cited prefatory to the subsequent clauses which provide for the limited government that the founders created. Not the unlimited government it would be if you used your reading of the sentence.

For more detail on this I recommend you read The Federalist number 41 where James Madison rips into anyone who would dare read the Constitution in such a fashion.

Please continue.....

 

[DiamondDave]

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional"..

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

and the second is the 16th Admendment to the constitution, which reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In addition, as I previously mentioned, the people who are complaining about their "wealth being redistributed" are specifically the people whom wealth has been being redistributed to over the past 50 years or so, through inequalities in federal funding and taxation in various regions.

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Try and understand what welfare actually means in the Constitution

And your conclusion of wealth redistribution going upward is ludicrous.. PERIOD... try looking at the tax rates and totals of tax burden..

What an idiot

 

[SFC Ollie]

Spoken like a true traitor.

All the shit we put up with with Bush for 8 ******* years, and now you are peeing in your pants in less than a year because the legally elected president isn't following your philosophy.

Like your side said during Bush's fucked up reign, if you don't like it leave. Americans vote for their president, they don't have the military run the governement you ******* traitor.

I might have heard or seen someone tell a really idiotic far left nutcase that maybe 10 times during the Bush years. But I have had some loony left wing nutcase tell me that at least twice that many times in the just past 12 months.

I'm not leaving.

 

[Contumacious]

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional"..

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

and the second is the 16th Admendment to the constitution, which reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In addition, as I previously mentioned, the people who are complaining about their "wealth being redistributed" are specifically the people whom wealth has been being redistributed to over the past 50 years or so, through inequalities in federal funding and taxation in various regions.

Two things make the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional:

1- It was NEVER ratified

2- It is graduated

.

 

[Contumacious]

There parasites in all the states.

.

While that is true, if we are to break it down, it would seem that Republicans are larger "parasites" than Democrats, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Since the folks that are actually paying the bills aren't complaining, this argument is weak at best.

Concur absolutely.

Halliburton, KBR and yourself are parasites. Even though the first two are of the republican persuasion.

.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, policies which transfer wealth from one group to another are not unconstitutional according to parasites and those addicted to federal largesse. So if you are a tax consumer then you loves his policies.

.

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

OK, we'll go through this again. What is the punctuation mark after the word States?

It isn't a period is it? It's a semi-colon isn't it? That means that the clauses listed after the semi-colon give definition to the general thought. This makes the clause you cited prefatory to the subsequent clauses which provide for the limited government that the founders created. Not the unlimited government it would be if you used your reading of the sentence.

For more detail on this I recommend you read The Federalist number 41 where James Madison rips into anyone who would dare read the Constitution in such a fashion.

Please continue.....

ROFL, that's a good one, I hadn't heard that particular rationalization yet...

However it is also false, as the entire section uses Semi-Colons to separate each individual power (not to be confused with separation of powers, which surely Glenn Beck would do).

Observe:

The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; ...

As you can plainly see, none of the following clauses contradict or change the meaning of the first clause in the slightest.

And as for James Madison, as been discussed in several other posts, the Consitution was a group effort, created by many people's very different ideas. The ramblings of one man, even if he is James Madison, cannot possible represent the intent of all of the framers.

If the consitution had had a more specific intent here, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Two things make the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional:

1- It was NEVER ratified

It was ratified according to the sources I just checked, just to be sure.

Any move by the army would be unconstitutional, but a move by the voters would be perfectly legal. Of course to revoke the 16th would require another amendment and I don't see that coming from congress. Do you?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, actually they're not unconstitutional because of two things in the Consitution:

The first is Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Consitution, specifically:

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

OK, we'll go through this again. What is the punctuation mark after the word States?

It isn't a period is it? It's a semi-colon isn't it? That means that the clauses listed after the semi-colon give definition to the general thought. This makes the clause you cited prefatory to the subsequent clauses which provide for the limited government that the founders created. Not the unlimited government it would be if you used your reading of the sentence.

For more detail on this I recommend you read The Federalist number 41 where James Madison rips into anyone who would dare read the Constitution in such a fashion.

Please continue.....

ROFL, that's a good one, I hadn't heard that particular rationalization yet...

However it is also false, as the entire section uses Semi-Colons to separate each individual power (not to be confused with separation of powers, which surely Glenn Beck would do).

Observe:

The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; ...

As you can plainly see, none of the following clauses contradict or change the meaning of the first clause in the slightest.

And as for James Madison, as been discussed in several other posts, the Consitution was a group effort, created by many people's very different ideas. The ramblings of one man, even if he is James Madison, cannot possible represent the intent of all of the framers.

If the consitution had had a more specific intent here, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT.

You sir, are a joke....not a good one, but a joke none the less.

Right, The Federalist Papers are mere ramblings. That's why the US Supreme Court has cited them with approval so many times throughout the last two centuries right? But, of course, your interpretation must be the right because you are some idiot on the Internet, right?

I think I'll listen to James Madison on what the Constitution says and you can continue to listen to those pesky voices in your head.

From Federalist 41

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?

Do you get it yet?

 

[Tech_Esq]

...

As you can plainly see, none of the following clauses contradict or change the meaning of the first clause in the slightest.

...

If the consitution had had a more specific intent here, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT.

On this point, this is precisely what I said. The latter clauses describe the limited powers allowed the Congress under Article I, Section 8. The general statement is described by the more limited specific grants of power. So, you are perfectly correct when you say they do not contradict the first clause, because they were meant to give voice to it. Funny how it all makes sense when you read it like that and how it's stupid when you try to pervert its meaning, huh?

 

[Vast LWC]

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Try and understand what welfare actually means in the Constitution

Says that particular Consitutional Scholar, who obviously, by his own admission, disagrees with the way many other people interpret the document.

But, even if he is correct, and I am not saying he is, his interpration would specifically include the General Health, happiness, and prosperity of the United States as a whole. Which would, again, cover just about everything the Tea Partiers feel is "unconstitutional".

And as far as this goes:

And your conclusion of wealth redistribution going upward is ludicrous.. PERIOD... try looking at the tax rates and totals of tax burden..

What an idiot

First of all, I never said anything about wealth distribution going UPWARD. Try and read before you call people "idiots".

What I SAID was wealth distribution is going from Blue States to Red States.

The fact is that Blue States are RICHER than Red States. They pay more taxes, per capita, and receive less in federal funding, per capita.

This has been true for decades.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

OK, we'll go through this again. What is the punctuation mark after the word States?

It isn't a period is it? It's a semi-colon isn't it? That means that the clauses listed after the semi-colon give definition to the general thought. This makes the clause you cited prefatory to the subsequent clauses which provide for the limited government that the founders created. Not the unlimited government it would be if you used your reading of the sentence.

For more detail on this I recommend you read The Federalist number 41 where James Madison rips into anyone who would dare read the Constitution in such a fashion.

Please continue.....

ROFL, that's a good one, I hadn't heard that particular rationalization yet...

However it is also false, as the entire section uses Semi-Colons to separate each individual power (not to be confused with separation of powers, which surely Glenn Beck would do).

Observe:

The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; ...

As you can plainly see, none of the following clauses contradict or change the meaning of the first clause in the slightest.

And as for James Madison, as been discussed in several other posts, the Consitution was a group effort, created by many people's very different ideas. The ramblings of one man, even if he is James Madison, cannot possible represent the intent of all of the framers.

If the consitution had had a more specific intent here, THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT.

You sir, are a joke....not a good one, but a joke none the less.

Right, The Federalist Papers are mere ramblings. That's why the US Supreme Court has cited them with approval so many times throughout the last two centuries right? But, of course, your interpretation must be the right because you are some idiot on the Internet, right?

I think I'll listen to James Madison on what the Constitution says and you can continue to listen to those pesky voices in your head.

From Federalist 41

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?

Do you get it yet?

They will never "get it" brother. ~BH

 

[Vast LWC]

Two things make the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional:

1- It was NEVER ratified

While this belief has become very popular among right-wing talking heads, it is simple untrue. The 16th Amendment was in fact ratified by 42 of the then existing 48 states.

3/4 of the states are needed for ratification. 42 out of 48 far exceeds this requirement.

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2- It is graduated

.

And?

 

[Vast LWC]

Concur absolutely.

Halliburton, KBR and yourself are parasites. Even though the first two are of the republican persuasion.

.

Well, that's not even close to true.

Personally I make quite a nice salary (as does my wife), pay all my taxes without complaint, and I served my country in the Army.

That would make me, specifically, NOT a parasite.