# Where in the Constitution?



## Gdjjr (Nov 18, 2020)

With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid? 

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently- 


*Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?*


----------



## norwegen (Nov 18, 2020)

This is why we simply need to ignore any Bite-me Administration.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

Where in the Constitution did it allow the Democratic war machine to institute the draft then turn around and allow them to exempt their children by sending them to college or making sure they were placed in a "essential job" to avoid the draft?

If Biden gets into office expect the Democratic war machine to start up again taking over where Obama left off and the Democratic warlords in Congress to scream how we need to institute the draft so long as their sons and daughters can sit it out in a classroom or cushy office at their family place of business.

War is just fine with the progressive Democratic war machine so long as they and theirs don't have to spill any blood.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...


Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...


You promote the general welfare through enumerated powers. You know this, you just choose to ignore it. Because your retarded ass has yet to figure out how to wipe your own ass.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 418021
> 
> Where in the Constitution did it allow the Democratic war machine to institute the draft then turn around and allow them to exempt their children by sending them to college or making sure they were placed in a "essential job" to avoid the draft?
> 
> ...


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  Parler misses you.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...


There is obviously NOTHING in the Constitution that grants the fed gov the power to do any of this.
BTW, 80% of our fed gov is unconstitutional. Period.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the General welfare


Promoting is NOT providing for- words mean things or they don't.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Parler misses you.


Address the message- the constitution- attacking a messenger is so yesterday- I believe he did- why can't you?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 418021
> ...







All the wars of last century in which the draft was instituted were started by Democrats.

Who is going to fight the progressive Democratic war machines wars when education and health care are free and no one wants to volunteer to join the military for the non-existent benefits?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Agit8r (Nov 18, 2020)

Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.


----------



## Viktor (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...


No place. Article I lists all the things Congress can do. The President, with executive orders, cannot do anything not listed there. There is nothing there about medical matters. The 10th amendment says:"All powers not granted to the Federal govt by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states belong to the states or to the people."  That's called "Federalism". Only the states can order a lockdown.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Parler misses you.
> ...


Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Damaged Eagle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  Parlor misses you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...


Our welfare clause is General not Common nor Limited and must cover any contingency which affects the general welfare.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...


This fails as a straw man fallacy.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 18, 2020)

TNHarley said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...



You should make a sign and stand on the street corner. Were you at the MILLION MORON MARCH?


----------



## Viktor (Nov 18, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...


Not at all. if Biden orders a nationwide lockdown, somebody will sue him in court. The judge will use the Constitution to decide if he can do that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...







I have no idea what parlor is.

Now show us where the Constitution says that the president of Congress can institute the draft?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

I meant Parler.  

Our Second Amendment is clear, and State militias can be federalized. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> I meant Parler.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clear, and State militias can be federalized.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.







I don't see the word federalized or drafted in the 2nd Amendment either. 

*****SMILE*****


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

Damaged Eagle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I meant Parler.
> ...


What is necessary to the security of a free State can be drafted.  Necessary is not optional.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...







It's not a free state if they intend to force people to do their will.

They and their children may lead and shed their blood and perhaps I'll follow.

That's called leading by example.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2020)

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 18, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.







I've already paid my debt in that area.

Now their children and people such as yourself can fill those obligations.

You want health care and educational benefits see your local recruiter.

Otherwise...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?



  That would be in the First Amendment, where it references freedom of assembly.

  Oh, wait, that *prohibits* such lockdowns.

  Never mind.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 18, 2020)

TNHarley said:


> You promote the general welfare through enumerated powers. You know this, you just choose to ignore it. Because your retarded ass has yet to figure out how to wipe your own ass.



  Getting drawn into an argument with danielpalos is like competing in the Special Olympics.  Even when you win, you're still a retard, just for wasting your time and attention on him, and helping him to pollute any thread with his nonsense.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.


Our welfare IN general-not a specific- 





__





						The U.S. Constitution: Preamble
					

The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution. It is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It communicates the intentions of the framers and purpose of the document.




					www.uscourts.gov
				





    The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.


    Establish Justice is the first of five objectives outlined in the 52-word paragraph that the Framers drafted in six weeks during the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. They found a way to agree on the following basic principles:


    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Damaged Eagle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...


lol.  Right wingers don't care about express law; y'all prefer to hypocrites toward the less fortunate.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Right wingers don't care about express law; y'all prefer to hypocrites toward the less fortunate.


Pot, meet Kettle


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.
> ...


lol.  So, where in our Constitution is there any authority for right wing alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...



right next to
America is a christian nation
and 
only heterosexuals can marry


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.
> ...


The preamble describes what we are supposed to be doing with our Constitutional form of Government.  

You will notice there is no general badfare clause nor any general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Right wingers don't care about express law; y'all prefer to hypocrites toward the less fortunate.
> ...


Show us the express immigration clause right wingers fantasize about in our federal Constitution.  Hypocrites much?


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Show us the express immigration clause right wingers fantasize about in our federal Constitution


You've already proven you can't read and comprehend simple English- so, I'll just tell you- it doesn't exist- NOW, fuck face, explain the Bill of Rights and the preamble to the constitution, in particular, general Welfare-


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...



Welcome to America 2.0!


----------



## anynameyouwish (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...



things NOT in the constitution

marriage
driving cars
social security
drinking alcohol
smoking tobacco
electricity
baseball

the constitution doesnt mention prima nocta

does that mean trump does or does not have a right to fuck your bride on your wedding night?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Show us the express immigration clause right wingers fantasize about in our federal Constitution
> ...


lol.  I have a one liner simple enough for even the right wing to understand. 

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must cover any given contingency in a general top down manner.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must cover any given contingency in a general top down manner.


Intentionally misinterpreting again, through incorrect spelling illustrates Public Education failed you, in *g*eneral, and gives not a whit about your *W*elfare-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must cover any given contingency in a general top down manner.
> ...


You give yourself away right winger.  Do you understand the words and their meaning or not?


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> You give yourself away right winger. Do you understand the words and their meaning or not?


I'm a libertarian- so, from the get-go, your attempt at attacking the messenger fails, miserably- I am very familiar with simple English and context- capitalizing a word mid sentence makes it as noun, (person, place or thing)- did your Public Education forget to point that out?


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Dipshit has nothing, so he chooses to deflect. With something that Gdjjr doesnt support


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

TNHarley said:


> Dipshit has nothing, so he chooses to deflect. With something that Gdjjr doesnt support


I support "promote the general Welfare"- I don't abide providing Welfare in general- dipshit deosn't know the difference-


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Dipshit has nothing, so he chooses to deflect. With something that Gdjjr doesnt support
> ...


I know. I was referring to the unconstitutional war on drugs and shit.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You give yourself away right winger. Do you understand the words and their meaning or not?
> ...


Not if it is for emphasis.  Did you learn nothing but insist you have the "gospel Truth"?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Dipshit has nothing, so he chooses to deflect. With something that Gdjjr doesnt support
> ...



You obviously don't care about being legal to the law either. 

_The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So general welfare clause means the federal government can do anything to anyone anytime just because?


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Listen you federal supremacist, James madison clarified this retarded fucking issue before. He said providing general welfare must be done through enumerated powers. This DOESNT EXPAND the fed govs power. If it did, the enumerated powers would be REDUNDANT.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


How ever did you reach that conclusion?  Promoting the general welfare is the End, providing for the general welfare is the Means.


----------



## BS Filter (Nov 20, 2020)




----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 20, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...







I think you have a point and strongly suggest that you should give up everything you own and take the chance you might be granted a sainthood status.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 21, 2020)

Obey the (Constitutional) law, right wingers.  Don't be illegal to the (Constitutional) law.


----------



## Englewood (Nov 23, 2020)

MOST OF THE ANSWERS TO THESE: where is it found in the Constitution; depend on case-law and not on reading the Constitution


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 24, 2020)

Englewood said:


> MOST OF THE ANSWERS TO THESE: where is it found in the Constitution; depend on case-law and not on reading the Constitution


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 24, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...



Still demonstrating your ignorance on the General Welfare Clause I see.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.



Does not make it right.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


In what way?  You need a valid argument to be taken seriously not just your opinion.  I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.
> ...


Consumer protection and pharmaceuticals regulation is not right?  Since when.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 25, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.


All you have given is opinion- I believe, is not a convincing argument-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.
> ...


Thanks.  I may borrow that for a while.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 25, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Thanks. I may borrow that for a while.


Help yourself-


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 25, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I've already provided Madison's words on the subject.

I am not arguing it any further.


----------



## Agit8r (Nov 26, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.
> ...



Why wouldn't it be right? Remember that the "originalist" argument was invented by Madison. And he was president then.  A reminder that it was only ever a theoretical legal argument to begin with.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 26, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



That was directed at someone else.

The argument regarding the General Welfare Clause has gone on for decades.  

I have supplied support for my position (which is the position of others in this thread).

Do we need to review that.

To your point, you could say that and you'd be correct if there were no arguments.  And while I lean right, I am all to well aware of the lack of good arguments coming from the right on several topics and issues.  But in this case, I've already done it.  If you'd like to review that we can start another thread and discuss.  

All danielpalos does is look at what is presented (like writings from Madison) and simply say....this is what the two words mean when put together.  That's a great argument.


----------



## MadChemist (Nov 26, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



Madison was quite clear in his arguments to sell the constitution in the Federalist Papers.

The inclusion of a Bill of Rights at the insistence of the skeptics (which included the 10th amendment) is telling with regards to the scope of the constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


What arguments are you referring to?

Yes, I actually understand the meaning the words involved, unlike the right wing.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


This is express law, you have no better argument:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District....


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 27, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> This is express law, you have no better argument:
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District....


That depends, entirely, on perspective- from a moral perspective, it's, well, immoral- if it's about Liberty, it's equally immoral, and could be considered illegal- legal and moral are rarely acquainted- legislation, restricts and favors- that isn't the role of gov't- the role of the fed gov't is outlined in the constitution, and reading the anti-federalist explains why, (fear of tyranny and oppression being "legislated")- the role of the fed gov't is to ensure equal footing for all participating in commerce- hence "District" representatives to ensure one (District) didn't have a "legislated" advantage over another-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > This is express law, you have no better argument:
> ...


No, it doesn't.  It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 27, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> No, it doesn't. It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.


Like I've said before- your opinion- and as I just said, perspective- both are subjective, which means, having an objective without being objective- to "exercise"  objective one has to displace subjective- to displace subjective one has to be open to knowledge, which is merely other "opinions", many times based on physical evidence, not imaginary wants (opinions)- opinions legislated are immoral, in the context of the constitution- the restrictions ARE THE constitution- the absolutes are the Bill of Rights with but one (1) caveat, in the 4th amendment, which presents *ambiguity* - the ONLY ambiguous wording in the document-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > No, it doesn't. It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.
> ...


The express law is clear. 
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 27, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> The express law is clear.
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


IDGAF- read what I said and respond accordingly- your knee jerks are getting old-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The express law is clear.
> ...


You are simply wrong.  Try your argument in front of a judge.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 27, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> You are simply wrong. Try your argument in front of a judge.


My opinion of people who wear black dresses in public is well known-and they are no smarter than you- and you, ain't near as smart as you feel you are-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply wrong. Try your argument in front of a judge.
> ...


You are welcome to your opinion.  Exercising the judicial power of the United States is in Article 3.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 27, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply wrong. Try your argument in front of a judge.
> ...



And all of the above are smarter than you.


----------



## Englewood (Nov 28, 2020)

If you use the Constitution as your evidence one should make sure the Court has not already ruled on the topic. If the Court has ruled on that topic their ruling is case law and is the Constitution. I understand that some law schools only teach case Law.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 28, 2020)

Englewood said:


> If you use the Constitution as your evidence one should make sure the Court has not already ruled on the topic. If the Court has ruled on that topic their ruling is case law and is the Constitution. I understand that some law schools only teach case Law.



  The Constitution says what it says, regardless of how some court may twist, corrupt, or _“interpret”_ it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 29, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> ...


Promote the general welfare, not provide for it..


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 30, 2020)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


Both promote and provide are expressed in reference to the general welfare not the common defense and we have no general warfare or common offense clause.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 30, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Both promote and provide are expressed in reference to the general welfare


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,* provide* for the common defence,* promote* the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 30, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Both promote and provide are expressed in reference to the general welfare
> ...


That is our mission statement and the "filtered lens" by which we should be reading and understanding the rest of our Constitution. 

Both promote and provide are expressly declared for the general welfare not the common defense.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 30, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Note the spelling- a noun- means what?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Nov 30, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?
> 
> There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-
> 
> ...



i was told that “lockdowns” are in the same paragraph with “the united states is a christian nation”

so i searched the constitution for that....but couldnt find it!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 30, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


In your case, it means nothing but red herrings and diversions.  Capitalization is for Emphasis in Constitutional cases.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 1, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


_"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote* the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."_
You loons have a bad habit of making up shit and trying to pass it off as Constitutional.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 2, 2020)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 2, 2020)

Where were you post 911 when georgie bush wrote half our contitutional rights away.  Where have you been lately now that just recently they decided banks can have zero reserves and the fed can buy into the stock market.
Laws. Constitutional rights are a thing of the past.
Given any government self declared emergency gives them the right to write anything into law they wamt regardless.  Even freedom from future liability.  It all started with 911 and the Bush era.  What you sow is what you reap.
Your government now acts above the law and with impunity.
I could go through that Costitution and show you line by line how almost every right and freedom you had no longer exists in its full intent.
  You have no Costitution. No rights.  No unshackled freedoms. Anymore.  You slept and blamed your neighbor while not stopping your own political party from doing corruptable things.  No matter which side of the political isle.  Both sides ruined it for everyone.
Its amazing if you read what is crossing the presidents desk and being signed.  It always has absolutly nothing to do with what you hear from the media.  Do you realize that if you have a new patent that during a so called state of emergency the govt can take it from you for their own profit?  
Again.
What Constitution?
Whom ever is in charge can do whatever they want. They have been doing it right under you nose since 911.  Read whats being signed by both parties.  Turn off youtube. Facebook. And msm.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 2, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Promote the general welfare not provide for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2020)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> ...


Our Constitution is more supreme than that.   Both, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare but not the common defense.


----------

