why do democrats pretend to care about the constitution

[martybegan]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Why is it republicans want to start a war on drugs and militarize the police and infringe on Constitutional rights?

Plenty of States where Dems have been in power for decades have done the same thing.

Over policing is an authoritarian issue, not a dem/republican issue.

 

[Meister]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Why is it republicans want to start a war on drugs and militarize the police and infringe on Constitutional rights?

Plenty of States where Dems have been in power for decades have done the same thing.

Over policing is an authoritarian issue, not a dem/republican issue.

Just look what the democrats have done to the once great state of California.

 

[deanrd]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

So you think minimum-wage is a bad idea? They pay you too much? And with green energy, who wants coal? And freedom of association? You can hang around with Nazis, we have no problem with that. It’s when you’re kind gets violent that we get upset.

 

[deanrd]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Why is it republicans want to start a war on drugs and militarize the police and infringe on Constitutional rights?

Plenty of States where Dems have been in power for decades have done the same thing.

Over policing is an authoritarian issue, not a dem/republican issue.

Just look what the democrats have done to the once great state of California.

Turned it into the sixth largest economy in the world?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

 

[MAGAman]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

They don't.

Next?

 

[Meister]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Why is it republicans want to start a war on drugs and militarize the police and infringe on Constitutional rights?

Plenty of States where Dems have been in power for decades have done the same thing.

Over policing is an authoritarian issue, not a dem/republican issue.

Just look what the democrats have done to the once great state of California.

Turned it into the sixth largest economy in the world?

Sanctuary state...sanctuary cities, unfunded pensions.

Government Debt.
How much in debt are the California governments? That’s hard to know too. According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit. Other studies believe it to be more. Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household. Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.

What’s the right number? Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate. In every case, the number is staggering.
The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable

Ranks 50 out of 50 with 'Quality of life'...In otherwards, dean, it's the shithole
of the United States.

 

[TNHarley]

It doesnt mention minimum wage. Thats precisely my point. So thanks for that!
I was referring to eliminating private insurance.
Freedom of association is always under attack with things such as public accommodation laws.

The constitution has nothing to say about a whole range of stuff it in no way impedes laws on that stuff being issued. Is your contention that laws should only be made on stuff explicitly named in the constitution? As to your bathroom example. I could just as easily argue that having gender specific bathrooms is an attack on the constitution. A

It doesnt mention minimum wage. Thats precisely my point. So thanks for that!
I was referring to eliminating private insurance.
Freedom of association is always under attack with things such as public accommodation laws.

Are you trying to contend that only stuff that is specified in the constitution can be made into laws? As to your freedom of association. I could just as easily argue that denying an individual access to a bathroom after he choose to identify himself as another gender is against freedom of association. I also don't see what article of the constitution has anything to say about health insurance and whether or not it should be private?

The constitution gives the fed gov a well defined set of enumerated powers. It even explicitly states everything else is left to the states.
Bathroom usage is a private property issue, not the fed gov. You have no right to others property. Freedom of association isnt about individuals restricting you. Its about the govt restricting you. or forcing you.

Yes and one of those well enumerated powers is the issuing of laws the population. Laws like you have to wear a seat belt. Laws like an employer has to provide a safe workplace. Or he can not give his employees less than a certain amount of money. And bathrooms in schools are public property. And yes freedom of association works both individually and publicly.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws within the realm of their enumerated powers
There is no federal seatbelt laws
Fed minimum wage is unconstitutional
There is no freedom of association between individuals. I cant restrict who someone does business with. Neither can the fed gov but they do it anyway.

Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.

Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.

I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. **** em all

 

[martybegan]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

 

[TNHarley]

It is Trump who is shitting on the Constitution by ignoring congressional oversight

Rules do not apply to him

Lol so he doesnt have a right to challenge it?
Boy, if thats not disingenuous coming from a political hack. Specifically, a democrat

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

LOL...seriously?

Article 1... oversight of the executive.

 

[deanrd]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

What do you think the job of Congress is besides oversight? Duh!

 

[deanrd]

It is Trump who is shitting on the Constitution by ignoring congressional oversight

Rules do not apply to him

Lol so he doesnt have a right to challenge it?
Boy, if thats not disingenuous coming from a political hack. Specifically, a democrat

Why is your kind always calling names? Is that because that’s all you have? You cling to juvenile name-calling.
It demonstrates a lack of creativity and possibly low intelligence levels. Be better than that.

 

[forkup]

The constitution has nothing to say about a whole range of stuff it in no way impedes laws on that stuff being issued. Is your contention that laws should only be made on stuff explicitly named in the constitution? As to your bathroom example. I could just as easily argue that having gender specific bathrooms is an attack on the constitution. A
Are you trying to contend that only stuff that is specified in the constitution can be made into laws? As to your freedom of association. I could just as easily argue that denying an individual access to a bathroom after he choose to identify himself as another gender is against freedom of association. I also don't see what article of the constitution has anything to say about health insurance and whether or not it should be private?

The constitution gives the fed gov a well defined set of enumerated powers. It even explicitly states everything else is left to the states.
Bathroom usage is a private property issue, not the fed gov. You have no right to others property. Freedom of association isnt about individuals restricting you. Its about the govt restricting you. or forcing you.

Yes and one of those well enumerated powers is the issuing of laws the population. Laws like you have to wear a seat belt. Laws like an employer has to provide a safe workplace. Or he can not give his employees less than a certain amount of money. And bathrooms in schools are public property. And yes freedom of association works both individually and publicly.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws within the realm of their enumerated powers
There is no federal seatbelt laws
Fed minimum wage is unconstitutional
There is no freedom of association between individuals. I cant restrict who someone does business with. Neither can the fed gov but they do it anyway.

Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.

Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.

I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. **** em all

-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.
Oh and another thing. You agree that Republicans shit over the constitution to. Yet you felt it necessary to specify Democrats in the title of your OP. Can you explain why you felt the need to call out one group over another when you feel they do it equally?

 

[martybegan]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

LOL...seriously?

Article 1... oversight of the executive.

They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?

 

[martybegan]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

What do you think the job of Congress is besides oversight? Duh!

Again, where it the text do they have Subpoena powers with regards to the Preisdent and his officers?

They have impeachment power listed.

 

[TNHarley]

It is Trump who is shitting on the Constitution by ignoring congressional oversight

Rules do not apply to him

Lol so he doesnt have a right to challenge it?
Boy, if thats not disingenuous coming from a political hack. Specifically, a democrat

Why is your kind always calling names? Is that because that’s all you have? You cling to juvenile name-calling.
It demonstrates a lack of creativity and possibly low intelligence levels. Be better than that.

Because it was a disingenuous comment. Remember holder? You losers supported him doing his bullshit.
RDerp, we call you names because that is what you deserve.
Ideological hackery lacks creativity. You also lack self awareness, apparently. All of you partisan shitheads do. More disingenuous bullshit.

 

[TNHarley]

The constitution gives the fed gov a well defined set of enumerated powers. It even explicitly states everything else is left to the states.
Bathroom usage is a private property issue, not the fed gov. You have no right to others property. Freedom of association isnt about individuals restricting you. Its about the govt restricting you. or forcing you.

Yes and one of those well enumerated powers is the issuing of laws the population. Laws like you have to wear a seat belt. Laws like an employer has to provide a safe workplace. Or he can not give his employees less than a certain amount of money. And bathrooms in schools are public property. And yes freedom of association works both individually and publicly.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws within the realm of their enumerated powers
There is no federal seatbelt laws
Fed minimum wage is unconstitutional
There is no freedom of association between individuals. I cant restrict who someone does business with. Neither can the fed gov but they do it anyway.

Well. Seatbelt wasn't a good example maybe, but the rest stands. Either by regulatory agencies or laws. The federal minimum wage was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, the entity that is mandated by the constitution to make such rulings in 1940.Is the Federal Minimum Wage Unconstitutional?
So pray tell how do you uphold the claim that something is unconstitutional when the supreme court disagreed.?
No but individuals do have the right to choose their association. By the way I find it interesting that from your original premise of the OP you seem to not really capable of establishing that Democrats have really gone against the constitution. Nor are you capable of arguing against my position that Republicans can and have done so.
This is not to say the Democrats haven't done unconstitutional stuff, just that your examples aren't it.

Yea, the supreme court also said internment camps based on nationality were constitutional, and it obviously wasnt.
The supreme court is nothing more than political activists, they mean nothing to me. I can read and the constitution is clear.
There is nothing in the constitution that discusses labor. Those activists used the interstate commerce bullshit as justification.
"Regulate" as the text states, meant "to make regular" back then. Which would mean, a free flow of commerce. Meaning, dont let states prohibit the flow of any legal good. With john marshalls "interpretation" it would give congress complete authority over the private sector, which is bullshit and it contradicts the whole intent of the constitution. A limitation if federal power.
The fed gov has a right to regulate roads because that is an enumerated power.
Yes, indiv8duals have a right to choose their association, and dems want to take that away. Its quite clear.

I have stated several things dems want and do thatiis unconstitutional. im wondering whether you are actually reading what i am writing.
Republicans shit all over the constitution too. You wont get an argument from me. I dislike the entire duopoly. **** em all

-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.

No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

LOL...seriously?

Article 1... oversight of the executive.

They have power of impeachment. Where does it say they can Subpoena a president or its officers outside the impeachment process?

Oversight requires information. No?
The only play for Trump is executive privilege.

 

[forkup]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of ******* liars!

Speaking of not caring about the constitution...

Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers


^This is neither, "faithfully executing the office of the president" nor "protecting and defending the constitution" as the Oath of Office demands.

Where in the Constitution does Congress have subpoena power over a sitting president or his officers?

What do you think the job of Congress is besides oversight? Duh!

Again, where it the text do they have Subpoena powers with regards to the Preisdent and his officers?

They have impeachment power listed.

Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials.