who would support a return to a constitutionly sound government?

[Gunny]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

Apparently Gunny's hands

Get to the part where you can address the topic, huh? Being attacked personally by a dweeb doesn't phase me.

 

[Vast LWC]

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

Want to play a game of syntax? You picked the wrong person. Words mean things. Put together in a sentence, they mean something. Misinterpreting those words is dishonest.

I wasn't playing a game, I was expressing what I honestly feel.

Like Hamilton, I feel that the reason why that clause was placed in the Constitution was specifically to allow congress to provide for unforseen circumstances that might occur, where the "General Welfare" of the people of the United States needed to be protected.

And, when read as written, without any interpretation or allusion to "intent", that is what it says.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

meaning, at least,:

- phasing out SS and medicare asap
- ending the iraq war and closing our bases around the world except in afgh until we leave there
- leaving the UN
- ending the federal reserve
- stopping all foreign aid
- stopping all trade embargos such as cuba
- ending the income tax

Would I support a return to a constitutionally sound government? Yes

Phase out SS/Medicare/Federally Run entitlements? Yes
End War in Iraq? Its already over but we should leave the country to the iraqis. Close our bases around the world? Yes and then station those troops on our northern and southern borders with shoot to kill orders.
Leaving the UN? Not leave it but contribute the same as everyone else not so much more. We should also charge it rent for being on our soil.
Ending the fed? Absolutely
Stopping Foreign Aid? Absolutely except at times of natural disasters, but no more annual aid.
Stopping all trade embargos? Yes. However we should institute and import tax on any country we owe money to and use that tax to directly pay them the debts we owe.
Ending the income tax? Yes and No. Yes end the unconstitutional progressive tax system and replace it with a flat income tax where all citizens pay the same percentage of their income with no exceptions and no deductions.

Cool thread

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

Want to play a game of syntax? You picked the wrong person. Words mean things. Put together in a sentence, they mean something. Misinterpreting those words is dishonest.

I wasn't playing a game, I was expressing what I honestly feel.

Like Hamilton, I feel that the reason why that clause was placed in the Constitution was specifically to allow congress to provide for unforseen circumstances that might occur, where the "General Welfare" of the people of the United States needed to be protected.

And, when read as written, without any interpretation or allusion to "intent", that is what it says.

Except we were told in the Federalist Papers that that's not what it means, and there's nothing from the Constitutional Convention to suggest otherwise.

 

[Dr Gregg]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

Apparently Gunny's hands

Get to the part where you can address the topic, huh? Being attacked personally by a dweeb doesn't phase me.

you call me sheep after I put a well reasoned argument, and then claim I don't have a point and am just attacking you? I say apparently Gunny's hand, and you say I'm attacking you?

probably why you are an admin on a forum, all the others would of kicked you off for being such a POS troll

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

Apparently Gunny's hands

Get to the part where you can address the topic, huh? Being attacked personally by a dweeb doesn't phase me.

Thats all they have left in the face of the truth gunny. Read the teabagger as hatespeech thread, the last 3 pages or so of it .

 

[Gunny]

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

Want to play a game of syntax? You picked the wrong person. Words mean things. Put together in a sentence, they mean something. Misinterpreting those words is dishonest.

I wasn't playing a game, I was expressing what I honestly feel.

Like Hamilton, I feel that the reason why that clause was placed in the Constitution was specifically to allow congress to provide for unforseen circumstances that might occur, where the "General Welfare" of the people of the United States needed to be protected.

And, when read as written, without any interpretation or allusion to "intent", that is what it says.

You are basing your definition from the viewpoint of someone who things big government should rule our lives. That clause was not meant for the US government to control our daily lives. It was meant as a failsafe in an emergency. You CHOOSE to interpret as meaning the Fed government is God Almighty.

From inception, the Federal government was designed to conscript people to defend wealthy people from the British. There may have been a few idealist patriots, but the Revolutionary War was fought by the poor and waged by the wealthy to preserve their income. We've gone straight downhill from there.

Sentences mean things and they convey intent. You can't pick and choose words as you please. The intent of the Continental Congress was NEVER to replace one king with another that can't read English.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Get to the part where you can address the topic, huh? .

maybe you need to learn how to read, or learn what addressing the topic really means. Lying and make statements with nothing to back it up, and calling others idiot or sheep or what not is not.

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Right, and just because someone thinks something they don't agree with is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. Are you conveniently ignoring the part of the Constitution that allows for challenges of laws to go to the SC to rule on whether its unconstitutional or not?

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

Being attacked personally by a dweeb doesn't phase me.

Dude, you're a sheep. "If it's inconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule so ..."

Right?

 

[rightwinger]

When you're right, you're right.

Sometimes I wonder whether some Americans have actually read the Constitution, they seem to have absolutely no idea what is and is not Constitutional.

I guess the US Supreme Courts for the last 100 years have not read the Constitution either. They have consistently supported income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, the federal reserve, the rights of the government to make treaties and embargos and the right to engage in war

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

Checks and balances have been in place for over 225 years. The Supreme Court has the Constitutional role to interpret the Constitution. At no point has that role ever been delegated to message board posters.....even if you are Gunny

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

 

[rightwinger]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

 

[EriktheRed]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Evidently, they want constitutional law to be determined by the message board. They seem to think that is what the founding fathers intended

I wonder how many wingnuts on here are still planning on not participating in the Census.

 

[blu]

I would certainly support a return to constitutionally sound government. I would also add a restoration of the Senate being an arm of the State legislatures as the Constitution intended. Without the check of the States in place, we easily lose Federalism.

Also, I'd point out the ending government foreign aid doesnt end foreign aid because countless charitable organizations give far more than the government ever has and far more efficiently as well.

how is that possible? the gov gives away hundreds of billions if trillions a year in foreign aid. charity cant match that.

 

[antagon]

meaning, at least,:

- phasing out SS and medicare asap
- ending the iraq war and closing our bases around the world except in afgh until we leave there
- leaving the UN
- ending the federal reserve
- stopping all foreign aid
- stopping all trade embargos such as cuba
- ending the income tax

here i was, thinking that this shit would actually have something to do with the constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Why shouldnt people with a brain be able to interpret clear passages?

The Supreme Court is merely a panel of imperfect people. And they have been wrong many times in the past.

 

[blu]

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

where does the general welfare clause allow stealing from one set of people to help out another?

 

[WillowTree]

Since many States have filed suit we will surely see if THIS SC upholds the constitutionality of SS, Meidcare, Welfare and Medicaid and the new HC bill.

I, for one, hope they are all found unconstitutional and the Govt has to give back every dime that we the people have put into these bs entitlements.

These entitlements along with war spending are breaking this country. Would be nice to see them abolished and our troops coming home.

Do you think the Government has the money you contributed in some secret account with your name on it? The money you contribute already went to someone receiving SS or Medicare.

So what you are saying is that you would willingly walk away from ever receiving Social Security

it would be easy to put your money away,, if you didn't have to give it to the thieves in dc. the only reason ss is broke is cause they stole it.. sure as hell I'd walk away..

 

[Avatar4321]

so, when did you graduate law school? How long have you've been studying constitutional law and made judgements on it? Since you seem to think you know more than the highest judges and biggest experts on the constitution, the Supreme Court justices.

1) 2007

2) Seriously? about 10 years I suppose.

3) Why on earth does getting appointed to a position make someone "the biggest experts"?

You need to stop exalting certain men simply because of their position and actually look at the merits of what they are saying and doing.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

meaning, at least,:

1- phasing out SS and medicare asap
2- ending the iraq war and closing our bases around the world except in afgh until we leave there
3- leaving the UN
4- ending the federal reserve
5- stopping all foreign aid
6- stopping all trade embargos such as cuba
7- ending the income tax

With regard to #1... that's true and I'm all for it.

With regard to #2... That's false.

With regard to #3... That's true. And I'm all for it.

With regard to #4... That's true. And I'm all for it...

With regard to #5... Absolute NONSENSE...

With regard to #6... More NONSENSE...

With regard to #7... Very true and I'm all for it.

 

[WillowTree]

so, when did you graduate law school? How long have you've been studying constitutional law and made judgements on it? Since you seem to think you know more than the highest judges and biggest experts on the constitution, the Supreme Court justices.

1) 2007

2) Seriously? about 10 years I suppose.

3) Why on earth does getting appointed to a position make someone "the biggest experts"?

You need to stop exalting certain men simply because of their position and actually look at the merits of what they are saying and doing.