What kind of government do you want?

[Slade3200]

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

What and who evolved?


jfk man on the moon obama man in bathrooms - Google Search:

We can actually fly through the sky like birds and watch moving pictures on flat screens, it's pretty amazing

 

[Slade3200]

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

 

[OKTexas]

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

So you saying that the founders of the constitution were conservative and seen into the future?

Check

 

[OKTexas]

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

Yes, it is. Because there is no government-imposed penalty for being misled about the function and purpose of our federal government.

Again - since you brought up the issue of 'being free'...what do you desire to do that are you not free to do?

Listen, in China people are free to go about their daily lives. The things they can't do, most Chinese people don't want to do anyway. But you wouldn't call them free, would you?

No they aren't. What ******* planet are you on? And who the hell are you to decide they do or don't want to do something? I'm pretty sure being a slave to the chicom factory isn't right at the top of their to do list.

 

[Slade3200]

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people as individuals or as a collective? And to be clear is it your position that the FAA is unconstitutional. You've dodged that one the past few times i've asked.

 

[Slade3200]

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

So you saying that the founders of the constitution were conservative and seen into the future?

Check

Huh? come back when you're ready to have a real conversation. I"m not interested in engaging in grade school slander

 

[Slade3200]

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

 

[P@triot]

Constitutional Government

(Something Dumbocrats destroyed over 100 years ago)

 

[P@triot]

I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Then why wasn't the U.S. Constitution amended to reflect that "evolution" since the 1700's?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Then why wasn't the U.S. Constitution amended to reflect that "evolution" since the 1700's?

That's a great question. Obviously law makers governed through legislation and votes

 

[OKTexas]

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people as individuals or as a collective? And to be clear is it your position that the FAA is unconstitutional. You've dodged that one the past few times i've asked.

Individuals, and I told you there is nothing in the Constitution that give the feds the power to govern airspace over the States without the consent of the States.

 

[OKTexas]

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

 

[Slade3200]

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

 

[OKTexas]

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't need to back anything up using the constitution, it's your arguement that everything should be in there. It's my argument that our society has evolved since the 1700's. When I asked you about the FAA you brought up commerce. wtf?

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

 

[MaryL]

I fantasized that my government actually represented ALL of us, not just just the loudest. Not just poor blacks or rich whites, but ALL of us. South, North, east, west, lefties or righties. But it's not working that way. It's MONEY that rules the roost. the rest is bullsh*t.

 

[task0778]

Oh right, evolution, the ultimate excuse not to do the hard work required by the supreme law of the land. LMAO

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

I think you are somewhat mistaken:

Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.

An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;

OR

• A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

• The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;

OR

• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.

Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.
Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of December 2014). Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two–year term of Congress.[3] Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to go through the constitutional ratification process. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress' authority to set ratification deadline was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

 

[Slade3200]

Its a reality that we live with and like it or not our system needs to evolve with the changing times. We do have a process of legislating and adapting laws.. some restrict and others expand the powers of the federal government. Institutions like the FAA are not covered in the constitution yet I see them as useful and even necessary elements of our modern society. I don't necessarily think we need an FAA clause amended into the constitution. Do you?

Then tell your congressional representatives to get off their asses and do the necessary work to accommodate the need instead of illegally assuming powers not granted.

For centuries we have had presidents and congressmen and Supreme Court justices that have ran our government this way and now almost 300 years later you want me to call my congressman and tell him that they've been doing it all wrong?! Ok, I'll get right on that

You snowflakes never turn to the Constitution unless it's your ox that's getting gored, then you run to it and the courts crying like scared little school girls. Then you wonder what the States are pushing for an Article 5 convention to control the feds. Guss what, the federal courts have no more power to unilaterally amend or redefine the Constitution than the congress or president does, only the States have that power and they can do it with no federal input.

Thank you for that completely idiotic breakdown about how I think and the half truth lesson about how constitutional amendments work. If you want the other half... To amend the constitution the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention and pass an amendment with a 2/3 vote OR OR OR Congress can pass a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 vote from the senate and house. Out of all 27 amendments to our constitution guess how many have been passed by the states...

I think you are somewhat mistaken:

Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly Proposed and Ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility.

An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;

OR

• A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

• The legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any;

OR

• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (currently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period—if any.

Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.
Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of December 2014). Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two–year term of Congress.[3] Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to go through the constitutional ratification process. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress' authority to set ratification deadline was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

Yes thank you, I did leave out the ratification process.