What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[francoHFW]

Thank you for agreeing with me that SS is not guaranteed.


I note you skipped over the fact that The Obama has indeed continued/expanded nearly all of the GWB policies that, according to Him, made GWB a terrible President. I'll take that as a concession of the point.

Umm, which policy are you talking about?

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

Well, those were blocked by Pubs' fear mongering and BS, obviously. Gitmo IS only 1/3 the size, and the wiretaps are harder to get.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mind if I add something here?

Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.

"There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied (un-enumerated) powers."

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Wow, just wow.

Here is the qupte you just used in context.

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only, that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;" thus, leaving the question, whether the particular power 200*200 which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this *407] word in the articles *of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted, by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.

Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorporation," we find the great powers, to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are intrusted to its government. It can never be pretended, *408] *that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior. Such an idea can never be advanced. But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, intrusted with such ample powers, on the due execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the nation so vitally depends, must also be intrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. It can never be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution, by withholding the most appropriate means. Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. The exigencies of the nation may require, that the treasure raised in the north should be transported to the south, that raised in the east, conveyed to the west, or that this order should be reversed. Is that construction of the constitution to be preferred, which would render these operations difficult, hazardous and expensive? Can we adopt that construction (unless the words imperiously require it), which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise, by withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such be the mandate of the constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it *409] prohibit the creation of a corporation, *if the existence of such a 201*201 being be essential, to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair inquiry, how far such means may be employed.
It is not denied, that the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. That, for example, of raising revenue, and applying it to national purposes, is admitted to imply the power of conveying money from place to place, as the exigencies of the nation may require, and of employing the usual means of conveyance. But it is denied, that the government has its choice of means; or, that it may employ the most convenient means, if, to employ them, it be necessary to erect a corporation. On what foundation does this argument rest? On this alone: the power of creating a corporation, is one appertaining to sovereignty, and is not expressly conferred on congress. This is true. But all legislative powers appertain to sovereignty. The original power of giving the law on any subject whatever, is a sovereign power; and if the government of the Union is restrained from creating a corporation, as a means for performing its functions, on the single reason that the creation of a corporation is an act of sovereignty; if the sufficiency of this reason be acknowledged, there would be some difficulty in sustaining the authority of congress to pass other laws for the accomplishment of the same objects. The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it, the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed *to select the [*410 means; and those who contend that it may not select any appropriate means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception.

In other words, the power to charter a bank is a clear extension of Congresses power to regulate commerce and lay and collect taxes. That means, for the idiots, that Congress is limited in its power, even if the Constitution allows some flexibility.

Telling the right’s propensity to ignore 208 years of Constitutional case law, including Marbury.

This is coming from a guy that thinks that courts write the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Explain the NDAA. Failing that, explain why you left out the fact that treaties are aloso a part of US law, and it is actually possible for a treaty to totally disregard the Constitution, and even contradict it, and that laws based on that treaty will be accepted by the courts.

Wrong. That's a famous myth. No valid treaty can violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike down any such treaty.

 

[francoHFW]

It's understandable why Republicans find it so easy to start wars. They are 90% white and mostly Christian so they don't really care for a "different perspective". In fact, "diversity" is bad when your group is so monolithic.

Have you been watching the news? Your messiah is close to starting another war, with Iran, and he just signed a law that says he can go after terrorists anywhere in the world, including inside the US.

Hard diplomacy only, you'll see, and B.) only puting into law what was already going on- an idiotic Pub political gambit/trap...

 

[The Rabbi]

You could power it for a year.

STFU, Mary

My my...so bitter....so unimportant.

Is Perry still in the race?

Yeah. And he'll be the next nominee. So start packing, tinkerbell.

I think you have nothing to say. Not nothing intelligent. That's a given. Just nothing at all.
Buh bye.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Umm, which policy are you talking about?

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

Well, those were blocked by Pubs' fear mongering and BS, obviously. Gitmo IS only 1/3 the size, and the wiretaps are harder to get.

Nice equivocation - but doesnt change the fact that The Obama has continues/expanded these things.

By His standards and yours, The Obama must be a worse President than GWB.

 

[candycorn]

STFU, Mary

My my...so bitter....so unimportant.

Is Perry still in the race?

Yeah. And he'll be the next nominee. So start packing, tinkerbell.

I think you have nothing to say. Not nothing intelligent. That's a given. Just nothing at all.
Buh bye.

Nominee of what? Most likely to trip while chewing bubble gum?

 

[francoHFW]

"This is coming from a guy that thinks that courts write the constitution."

INTERPRET the constitution (close to the same thing...)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives are, for the most part, reactionaries, adherents to political dogma rather than facts.

Much of it is naïve fantasy: ‘end Social Security and its taxes and Americans can save and have more money for retirement.’ This naivete fails to take into consideration the disability aspect of Social Security for those who become ill or injured, benefits for minor surviving children, and others who would be forced to spend any ‘savings’ to make ends meet or address emergencies, given the fact of static wages over the last 30 years, while costs continue to increase.

Consequently millions of hard-working, middle income (‘paycheck to paycheck’) Americans would be destitute by retirement age, through no fault of their own.

Do you know what reactionary means? If we apply it the way the French, who coined the term, originally used it reactionaries are the people who support the current status quo of big government, and the radicals are those who fight to reform government and return power to the people. That makes modern conservatives, who want to change government and limit its power, radicals, not reactionaries.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

Right now, I would say anger. There seems to be a lot of unhappy campers around here.

Are you saying that occupiers are conservatives? \

FYI, anger is not a belief, it is an emotion.

 

[francoHFW]

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

Well, those were blocked by Pubs' fear mongering and BS, obviously. Gitmo IS only 1/3 the size, and the wiretaps are harder to get.

Nice equivocation - but doesnt change the fact that The Obama has continues/expanded these things.

By His standards and yours, The Obama must be a worse President than GWB.

Nope- limited 2 and totally blocked on the third.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm, which policy are you talking about?

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

Well, those were blocked by Pubs' fear mongering and BS, obviously. Gitmo IS only 1/3 the size, and the wiretaps are harder to get.

Blocked by Republicans when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and enough votes in the House to pass anything they wanted? How about this headline from the lefty rag HuffPo?

Democrats Pull Funding For Guantanamo Closure

Want to try again? Should i put you into the same category as rdean and TM?

I already do, but if you admit you are wrong I will move you to actual human instead of idiotic spambot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain the NDAA. Failing that, explain why you left out the fact that treaties are aloso a part of US law, and it is actually possible for a treaty to totally disregard the Constitution, and even contradict it, and that laws based on that treaty will be accepted by the courts.

Wrong. That's a famous myth. No valid treaty can violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike down any such treaty.

If only it were that simple.

Missouri v Holland

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. [W]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's understandable why Republicans find it so easy to start wars. They are 90% white and mostly Christian so they don't really care for a "different perspective". In fact, "diversity" is bad when your group is so monolithic.

Have you been watching the news? Your messiah is close to starting another war, with Iran, and he just signed a law that says he can go after terrorists anywhere in the world, including inside the US.

Hard diplomacy only, you'll see, and B.) only puting into law what was already going on- an idiotic Pub political gambit/trap...

If Iran shuts down the Straights of Hormuz that will be an act of war, which will mean that diplomacy has failed. He can pretend to be diplomatic all day long if he likes, but the only two ways to react to that is to surrender or fight.

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain the NDAA. Failing that, explain why you left out the fact that treaties are aloso a part of US law, and it is actually possible for a treaty to totally disregard the Constitution, and even contradict it, and that laws based on that treaty will be accepted by the courts.

Wrong. That's a famous myth. No valid treaty can violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike down any such treaty.

If only it were that simple.

Missouri v Holland

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. [W]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . .

That still doesn't imply that a treaty outweighs the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"This is coming from a guy that thinks that courts write the constitution."

INTERPRET the constitution (close to the same thing...)

You just proved that you are infinitely more informed than Jones. That does not change the fact that he has repeatedly said that courts actually write the constitution, which proves that you can be more informed and still be an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. That's a famous myth. No valid treaty can violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would strike down any such treaty.

If only it were that simple.

Missouri v Holland

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. [W]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . .

That still doesn't imply that a treaty outweighs the Constitution.

Treaties are the law of the land according to the constitution, you figure it out. Don't forget that courts think Congress have the power to regulate what people grow in their gardens.

 

[The Rabbi]

If only it were that simple.

Missouri v Holland

That still doesn't imply that a treaty outweighs the Constitution.

Treaties are the law of the land according to the constitution, you figure it out. Don't forget that courts think Congress have the power to regulate what people grow in their gardens.

Treaties are approved by the Senate. And like any other act of the Senate, or COngress, are subject to judicial review.
Courts do not believe that Congress can regulate what people grow in their gardens. It can regulate that people do not engage in producing illegal narcotics.

 

[francoHFW]

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

Well, those were blocked by Pubs' fear mongering and BS, obviously. Gitmo IS only 1/3 the size, and the wiretaps are harder to get.

Blocked by Republicans when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and enough votes in the House to pass anything they wanted? How about this headline from the lefty rag HuffPo?

Democrats Pull Funding For Guantanamo Closure

Want to try again? Should i put you into the same category as rdean and TM?

I already do, but if you admit you are wrong I will move you to actual human instead of idiotic spambot.

Dems have blue dogs who wouldn't go for that stuff. YOUR point that Obama is Bush III IS ridiculous.

 

[francoHFW]

I could say you're a brainwashed moron, but that would be rude. Hoping for your recovery. lol I'm sure you're a lovely person, outside of your political idiocy.