# The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.



## Brutus

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?


----------



## peach174

Exactly my question also.
Why do Dems and some Repubs believe in Socialism?
It has never worked.
Our Constitution is for a Republic form of government, not communism, not socialism or Marxism.
None of these 3 types of governments ever work, they always collapse eventually.
Hell that is why China went Capitalistic because they were going downhill with complete communism.


----------



## del

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



Actually, I think it was designed to keep people like you from ruling over the rest of us like a bunch of authoritarian fucktards.


----------



## Brutus

del said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.
Click to expand...


yes the liberal has no idea whatsoever that our government was designed to be limited. No matter how big it becomes they always more more and more tax and spend. They lack the IQ to understand how freedom works.


----------



## Brutus

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think it was designed to keep people like you from ruling over the rest of us like a bunch of authoritarian fucktards.
Click to expand...


the liberal lacks the IQ to know that liberal authortarian government is the oppposite of what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?


----------



## Wicked Jester

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?


The sheer entertainment value of libs alone is worth tolerating the ignorant lil' fools.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Brutus said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think it was designed to keep people like you from ruling over the rest of us like a bunch of authoritarian fucktards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the liberal lacks the IQ to know that liberal authortarian government is the oppposite of what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The extremes on both the right and the left are authoritarians and the Founders would approve of neither one.


----------



## Dragon

As I said on another thread, "Brutus" in Latin means stupid or bestial. This poster chose his name well.

Got any backup to that incredibly silly claim that the Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal? Like what provisions in the Constitution do this and how? And what the hell you mean by "liberalism"?


----------



## Cuyo

del said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.
Click to expand...


Too bad it didn't make stupid illegal...


----------



## Brutus

Cuyo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad it didn't make stupid illegal...
Click to expand...


By making liberalism illegal the Constitution did make stupidity, in effect,  illegal.
The problem is that, despite being stupid, the liberals have managed to get around the Constitution's mandate for limited government


----------



## jillian

Brutus said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes the liberal has no idea whatsoever that our government was designed to be limited. No matter how big it becomes they always more more and more tax and spend. They lack the IQ to understand how freedom works.
Click to expand...


that's really funny..... you think the constitution was intended to make half the country illegal?

i'm not even going to bother telling you how braindead that is.


----------



## Brutus

jillian said:


> that's really funny..... you think the constitution was intended to make half the country illegal?



at the time all of the country wanted freedom or limited  government. Sorry



jillian said:


> i'm not even going to bother telling you how braindead that is.




wanting freedom is brain dead to a liberal isn't it??


----------



## Dragon

Brutus said:


> at the time all of the country wanted freedom or limited  government.



All right, NOW I think I see what your "thinking" (or simian prototype thereof) consists in. You are saying:

1) Liberalism = unlimited government
2) The Constitution was enacted to weaken the government

Both are wrong.

Next!


----------



## Sallow

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.


----------



## Sallow

Brutus said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, some of us are really, really stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad it didn't make stupid illegal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By making liberalism illegal the Constitution did make stupidity, in effect,  illegal.
> The problem is that, despite being stupid, the liberals have managed to get around the Constitution's mandate for limited government
Click to expand...


The Constitution was written by Liberals. Why would they make themselves illegal?


----------



## Truthmatters

Brutus said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's really funny..... you think the constitution was intended to make half the country illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the time all of the country wanted freedom or limited  government. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not even going to bother telling you how braindead that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wanting freedom is brain dead to a liberal isn't it??
Click to expand...


So when the founders lead us in a fight against the ruling monarchy they were being conservatives?


Come on admitt it you are just trying to make cons look dumb and dont really believe what you are saying.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> As I said on another thread, "Brutus" in Latin means stupid or bestial. This poster chose his name well.
> 
> Got any backup to that incredibly silly claim that the Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal? Like what provisions in the Constitution do this and how? And what the hell you mean by "liberalism"?



The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.


----------



## Sallow

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said on another thread, "Brutus" in Latin means stupid or bestial. This poster chose his name well.
> 
> Got any backup to that incredibly silly claim that the Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal? Like what provisions in the Constitution do this and how? And what the hell you mean by "liberalism"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
Click to expand...


 Yeah.."enumerated".


----------



## Bern80

Sallow said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
Click to expand...


Depends on which definition of liberal you're using. Liberal as in going to great lenght to insure freedom, yes. Liberal as in the centralized, ever expanding entitlement providing government that 'liberals' seem to want today.......no.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.



I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.
Click to expand...


Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.


----------



## Moonglow

Considering that when the Constitution was written their was no form or ideaology of socialsm, marxism, communism, leninism, and the form of liberalism is what they wanted and is not the same as today, they could not have written it to exclude those forms of systems.


----------



## rdean

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



Liberals WROTE the constitution fool.  If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.



None of those programs outlaw liberalism.

Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.


----------



## Bern80

rdean said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals WROTE the constitution fool.  If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.
Click to expand...


You are showing an incredible lack of intellectual integrity if you are going to pretend the liberal you are is anything like the liberals then.


----------



## Sallow

Bern80 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on which definition of liberal you're using. Liberal as in going to great lenght to insure freedom, yes. Liberal as in the centralized, ever expanding entitlement providing government that 'liberals' seem to want today.......no.
Click to expand...


I generally use this one:



> lib·er·al&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;l&#618;b&#601;r&#601;l, &#712;l&#618;br&#601;l/  Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]  Show IPA
> adjective
> 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
> 2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
> 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
> 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
> 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.



Very little of the constitution is "conservative".

If it were..we'd still have a king.

That's the system you guys love.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those programs outlaw liberalism.
> 
> Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
> 
> This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...


Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like. So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.


----------



## Bern80

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on which definition of liberal you're using. Liberal as in going to great lenght to insure freedom, yes. Liberal as in the centralized, ever expanding entitlement providing government that 'liberals' seem to want today.......no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I generally use this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lib·er·al&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;l&#618;b&#601;r&#601;l, &#712;l&#618;br&#601;l/  Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]  Show IPA
> adjective
> 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
> 2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
> 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
> 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
> 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very little of the constitution is "conservative".
> 
> If it were..we'd still have a king.
> 
> That's the system you guys love.
Click to expand...


I would agree. But that definition isn't even close to what liberalism is today.


----------



## Sallow

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those programs outlaw liberalism.
> 
> Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
> 
> This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.* So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.
Click to expand...


Sure it does. The people send representatives from their state to decide how much tax will be collected. That's part of the job..and the power.


----------



## Bern80

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those programs outlaw liberalism.
> 
> Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
> 
> This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.* So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does. The people send representatives from their state to decide how much tax will be collected. That's part of the job..and the power.
Click to expand...


You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitution. Specifically in article 1 section 8.


----------



## Sallow

Bern80 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.* So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. The people send representatives from their state to decide how much tax will be collected. That's part of the job..and the power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitutions. specificall in article 1 section 8.
Click to expand...


What restrictions?

Congress has very broad powers.


----------



## jillian

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
Click to expand...


nice rant.

of course, none of what you say is accurate, but there ya go.

still not understanding the concept of judicial review and the role of the supreme court, bern?


----------



## Bern80

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice rant.
> 
> of course, none of what you say is accurate, but there ya go.
> 
> still not understanding the concept of judicial review and the role of the supreme court, bern?
Click to expand...


I understand it just fine. I guess I just wasn't aware that it is not possible for judges not render unconstitutional decisions.


----------



## Moonglow

again Brutus is proved wrong


----------



## Bern80

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. The people send representatives from their state to decide how much tax will be collected. That's part of the job..and the power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitutions. specificall in article 1 section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What restrictions?
> 
> Congress has very broad powers.
Click to expand...


Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.


----------



## Sallow

Bern80 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitutions. specificall in article 1 section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What restrictions?
> 
> Congress has very broad powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.
Click to expand...


Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..

So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".

Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.


----------



## Brutus

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said on another thread, "Brutus" in Latin means stupid or bestial. This poster chose his name well.
> 
> Got any backup to that incredibly silly claim that the Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal? Like what provisions in the Constitution do this and how? And what the hell you mean by "liberalism"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
Click to expand...


The Founders were conservative in the sense that modern conservatives are conservative, i.e. they were for limited governemnt.
They  wrote the Constitution to enshrine the Jeffersonian concept of limited government. This, in effect, made liberalism illegal. 


"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson


Now you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin, not the USA.


----------



## Sallow

Brutus said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said on another thread, "Brutus" in Latin means stupid or bestial. This poster chose his name well.
> 
> Got any backup to that incredibly silly claim that the Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal? Like what provisions in the Constitution do this and how? And what the hell you mean by "liberalism"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders were conservative in the sense that modern conservatives are conservative, i.e. they were for limited governemnt.
> They  wrote the Constitution to enshrine the Jeffersonian concept of limited government. This, in effect, made liberalism illegal.
> 
> 
> "The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> 
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson
> 
> 
> Now you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin, not the USA.
Click to expand...


Julia Childs spied for Stalin?

The things you learn here. 

Oh..and Conservatives had very little to do with the constitution.


----------



## rdean

Bern80 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals WROTE the constitution fool.  If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are showing an incredible lack of intellectual integrity if you are going to pretend the liberal you are is anything like the liberals then.
Click to expand...


Of course they are.  Conservatives of today were the confederates of yesterday (many still are).

Liberals of today are like the liberals of yesterday.

Look at scientists.  6% of scientists are Republican.  The majority are Democrat.  Conservative, liberal.  What ever the political party, conservatives have always tried to stop progress, stop science, fight education, fight human rights, everything opposite of liberals.  It's what defines liberals and conservatives.


----------



## Brutus

rdean said:


> It's what defines liberals and conservatives.



conservatives from Jefferson forward have voted against liberal taxes and big government, liberals have done the opposite.  Its been in all the papers to the extend that only a blind fool or Rdean could miss it. Sorry


----------



## Brutus

Sallow said:


> Julia Childs spied for Stalin?



If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??


:





Sallow said:


> Oh..and Conservatives had very little to do with the constitution.



conservative are for limited government. That was the entire purpose of the Revolution, Declaration and Constitution. Why not go to Cuba if you are afraid of freedom?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.





> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
> 
> Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like. So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.
> 
> You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitution. Specifically in article 1 section 8.



You both forgot to cite your case law in support. 

Or is this one of those weird libertarian things where the Supreme Court has been wrong for the last 208 years. 



> I would agree. But that definition isn't even close to what liberalism is today.



In your opinion, not in fact. 



> I understand it just fine. I guess I just wasn't aware that it is not possible for judges not render unconstitutional decisions.



Youre just not aware the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.


----------



## rdean

Brutus said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's what defines liberals and conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives from Jefferson forward have voted against liberal taxes and big government, liberals have done the opposite.  Its been in all the papers to the extend that only a blind fool or Rdean could miss it. Sorry
Click to expand...


Republicans have turned "hate government" into something so strong, they are blinded by ideology.

Countries that are doing well economically, like Germany, China, Taiwan, the rebound in Japan, other Asian countries understand the combination of "Government, Business and Universities".  It's called the "Triple Helix" and is the foundation of economic growth.  This worked for decades in the US.  Now it doesn't because Republicans have worked to destroy government.  They actually believe, without a shred of proof, their own rhetoric.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> *The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.*
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



What's wrong with us?  Apparently education would be a good place to start.  I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html


----------



## AVG-JOE

Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary liberal and Benedict Arnold was a conservative Torry.


----------



## Bern80

rdean said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals WROTE the constitution fool.  If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are showing an incredible lack of intellectual integrity if you are going to pretend the liberal you are is anything like the liberals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  Conservatives of today were the confederates of yesterday (many still are).
> 
> Liberals of today are like the liberals of yesterday.
> 
> Look at scientists.  6% of scientists are Republican.  The majority are Democrat.  Conservative, liberal.  What ever the political party, conservatives have always tried to stop progress, stop science, fight education, fight human rights, everything opposite of liberals.  It's what defines liberals and conservatives.
Click to expand...


I guess this needs to be made simpler for you. Liberals then were for the preservation of freedom. That is clearly not what liberals are for today. They support making people purchase healthcare, for example. That is not defending or protecting freedom. Anytime you take away a person's ability to choose you are taking away some of their freedom. Yes, both sides are guilty of it, but liberals of today are far more so.


----------



## Bern80

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What restrictions?
> 
> Congress has very broad powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..
> 
> So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".
> 
> Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.
Click to expand...


Actually no. Because one of the federal government's rather specific obligations is to defend our borders and the liberty of its people. Thus they can collect taxes and spend them how ever they deem neccessary to accomplish that obligation. I would agree however, that we probably don't need a base in a hundred odd countries around the globe to accomplish that.


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
Click to expand...







The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. *Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. *There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. 
Presidential Papers, Doc#1147 Personal and confidential To Edgar Newton Eisenhower, 8 November 1954. In The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower

Well, now we have that party...and it will be the END of the GOP.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.



Yes, it does, for several reasons.

1) Without the power to spend, the power to tax has no meaning or function.
2) If the power to tax did not, in this specific instance, include the power to spend, there would be no need for the limiting clauses which specify that Congress can levy taxes only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Levying taxes, in itself, does none of these things; only spending the revenue so gathered can pay debts, provide for the common defense, or provide for the general welfare. The two must go together or the enumerated power makes no sense at all.

These clauses are very broad, but not unlimited; Congress cannot, for example, levy a tax in order to provide every Congresscritter with a vacation home at public expense, as that does not pay any debts nor provide for the common defense or general welfare.

All of the programs you listed, except the income tax, amount to spending public money to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and/or levying taxes to pay for such spending (Social Security is both).

The Supreme Court, as you probably know, backs this view. The first enumerated power is a separate enumerated power. It is not dependent on the remaining ones, which are also separate and independent powers. There is one other enumerated power that is very broad, and that is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Just about everything the government does that conservatives object to is allowed by one or the other of these two clauses, and they were written into the government from the founding.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, for several reasons.
> 
> 1) Without the power to spend, the power to tax has no meaning or function.
> 2) If the power to tax did not, in this specific instance, include the power to spend, there would be no need for the limiting clauses which specify that Congress can levy taxes only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Levying taxes, in itself, does none of these things; only spending the revenue so gathered can pay debts, provide for the common defense, or provide for the general welfare. The two must go together or the enumerated power makes no sense at all.
> 
> These clauses are very broad, but not unlimited; Congress cannot, for example, levy a tax in order to provide every Congresscritter with a vacation home at public expense, as that does not pay any debts nor provide for the common defense or general welfare.
> 
> All of the programs you listed, except the income tax, amount to spending public money to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and/or levying taxes to pay for such spending (Social Security is both).
> 
> The Supreme Court, as you probably know, backs this view. The first enumerated power is a separate enumerated power. It is not dependent on the remaining ones, which are also separate and independent powers. There is one other enumerated power that is very broad, and that is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Just about everything the government does that conservatives object to is allowed by one or the other of these two clauses, and they were written into the government from the founding.
Click to expand...


They do have the power to spend. It simply isn't a power to spend on whatever they feel like. And of course you fell into the rationalization that every liberal does when reading the general welfare clause. The rationalization that as long as government can't rationalize something as being in the general welfare, the government can tax for it. James Madison essentially noted in the federalist 41 that people like you perhaps need to go back to grammar school in order to understand how very wrong in your interpretatin of this clause you are.



> Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> They do have the power to spend. It simply isn't a power to spend on whatever they feel like.



No, it's the power to spend only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

I'm aware of Madison's views. However, although he's sometimes called the "Father of the Constitution," he didn't write the document alone. It was a compromise among competing interests and ideas, and Alexander Hamilton -- who was diametrically opposed to Madison on this issue -- had at least as much input into its final form as Madison did.

Here's another bit of evidence, besides common sense and the interpretations by the Supreme Court. It would have been perfectly possible to create a much more limited tax-and-spend power that did precisely what you are saying this one was supposed to do. We find a good example in the Confederate Constitution, which is almost identical to the U.S. Constitution but in which a few passages were rewritten, and this was one of them:

"The Congress shall have the power . . .  To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States."

Note that here, we find again an implicit understanding that the power to tax is also the power to spend, but both are limited much more strictly than in the U.S. Constitution. First, the Congress is authorized to tax (and spend) to pay the nation's debts and provide for the common defense, but beyond that only to "carry on the government," to which the most likely interpretation is "do everything else authorized in this document." And second, a specific restriction is applied involving promoting industry.

If the intent of the framers was to empower Congress only to tax and spend sufficiently to carry out the other enumerated powers, that would have been so stated. It was not difficult to put into words, and these were highly literate men, some of whom were accomplished legal draftsmen. That they did not do this means that they did not intend to.

We sometimes forget that the constitutional convention was called not to limit an oppressive government but to strengthen a government that was so weak and inept it could not get the job done. Limitations were placed in the document because it is unthinkable among liberals that government be created without such limitations. They are necessary for the protection of liberty. But the idea was to create a _strong_ government, not a weak one, and the framers included some very powerful empowering language, as well as restraints.


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?


 bullshit.....U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care - TIME


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the power to spend. It simply isn't a power to spend on whatever they feel like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the power to spend only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
> 
> I'm aware of Madison's views. However, although he's sometimes called the "Father of the Constitution," he didn't write the document alone. It was a compromise among competing interests and ideas, and Alexander Hamilton -- who was diametrically opposed to Madison on this issue -- had at least as much input into its final form as Madison did.
> 
> Here's another bit of evidence, besides common sense and the interpretations by the Supreme Court. It would have been perfectly possible to create a much more limited tax-and-spend power that did precisely what you are saying this one was supposed to do. We find a good example in the Confederate Constitution, which is almost identical to the U.S. Constitution but in which a few passages were rewritten, and this was one of them:
> 
> "The Congress shall have the power . . .  To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States."
> 
> Note that here, we find again an implicit understanding that the power to tax is also the power to spend, but both are limited much more strictly than in the U.S. Constitution. First, the Congress is authorized to tax (and spend) to pay the nation's debts and provide for the common defense, but beyond that only to "carry on the government," to which the most likely interpretation is "do everything else authorized in this document." And second, a specific restriction is applied involving promoting industry.
> 
> If the intent of the framers was to empower Congress only to tax and spend sufficiently to carry out the other enumerated powers, that would have been so stated. It was not difficult to put into words, and these were highly literate men, some of whom were accomplished legal draftsmen. That they did not do this means that they did not intend to.
> 
> We sometimes forget that the constitutional convention was called not to limit an oppressive government but to strengthen a government that was so weak and inept it could not get the job done. Limitations were placed in the document because it is unthinkable among liberals that government be created without such limitations. They are necessary for the protection of liberty. But the idea was to create a _strong_ government, not a weak one, and the framers included some very powerful empowering language, as well as restraints.
Click to expand...


It WAS so stated in the U.S. Constitution. Madison can not be blamed if people like yourself are so uneducated as to not know what the purpose of semi-colon is.(as in how it can say the same thing without the need to actually right out the words). That semi-colon is essentially taking the place of the words 'the above are as follows'. Weak and limited in power are not the same thing.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> It WAS so stated in the U.S. Constitution. Madison can not be blamed if people like yourself are so uneducated as to not know the purpose of semi-colon is.(as in how it can say the same thing without the need to actually right out the words). That semi-colon is essentially taking the place of the words 'the above are as follows'.



Oh, please. If you were really as well educated as you seem to think you are, you would know that it is the colon, not the semicolon, that means "the above are as follows." A semicolon means nothing of the sort. It simply separates clauses of a sentence that might form a complete sentence in themselves, or items in a list, or major portions of a sentence that are divided internally by commas.

Also, you might have at least observed that every single one of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 ends in a semicolon except for the very last one. Are they ALL general powers further subdivided and explained by those below?


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It WAS so stated in the U.S. Constitution. Madison can not be blamed if people like yourself are so uneducated as to not know the purpose of semi-colon is.(as in how it can say the same thing without the need to actually right out the words). That semi-colon is essentially taking the place of the words 'the above are as follows'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. If you were really as well educated as you seem to think you are, you would know that it is the colon, not the semicolon, that means "the above are as follows." A semicolon means nothing of the sort. It simply separates clauses of a sentence that might form a complete sentence in themselves, or items in a list, or major portions of a sentence that are divided internally by commas.
> 
> Also, you might have at least observed that every single one of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 ends in a semicolon except for the very last one. Are they ALL general powers further subdivided and explained by those below?
Click to expand...


A semi-colon is used to link that which comes after it to that which comes after it. Madison explained it best in what I quoted in stating that if it really is YOUR interpretation this is correct then the enumerated powers shouldn't even be there in the first place. What point is there in being more specific in what government is allowed to spend money on, if all they really have to do is adhere to a broad interpretation of the clause itself?


----------



## daws101

The semicolon ( is a punctuation mark with several uses. The Italian printer Aldus Manutius the Elder established the practice of using the semicolon to separate words of opposed meaning and to indicate interdependent statements.[1] "The first printed semicolon was the work of ... Aldus Manutius" in 1494.[2] The earliest general use of the semicolon in English was in 1591;[citation needed] Ben Jonson was the first notable English writer to use it systematically. The modern uses of the semicolon relate either to the listing of items or to the linking of related clauses.

According to the British writer on grammar, Lynne Truss, many non writers avoid the colon and semicolon for various reasons: "They are old-fashioned", "They are middle-class", "They are optional", "They are mysteriously connected to pausing", "They are dangerously addictive (vide Virginia Woolf)", and "The difference between them is too negligible to be grasped by the brain of man".[3]


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> A semi-colon is used to link that which comes after it to that which comes after it.



Wrong. A semicolon implies no link whatsoever. Here's a rule of thumb: wherever you see a semicolon used properly, it can be replaced by a period. The semicolon serves essentially the same purpose.



> Madison explained it best in what I quoted in stating that if it really is YOUR interpretation this is correct then the enumerated powers shouldn't even be there in the first place. What point is there in being more specific in what government is allowed to spend money on, if all they really have to do is adhere to a broad interpretation of the clause itself?



Only the first enumerated power is a spending power. The others are different, and each is separate from the first power just as it is separate from them. The power to tax and spend does not imply: [note the colon, not semicolon, here for future grammatical reference]

1) the power to borrow money;
2) the power to regulate commerce;
3) any functions of criminal law, including prescribing punishments for such things as counterfeiting or piracy;
4) the power to set standards of weights and measures, or to legislate copyright, trademark, and patent law;
5) the power to coin money;
6) the power to raise armies and navies (as this requires many actions besides spending money);
7) the power to declare war or make rules governing the conduct in war or prescribe rules for the militia;
8) the power to establish courts of law; or
9) the complete legislative authority over the U.S. capital.

Nor does it encompass all laws necessary and proper to carrying out the powers granted Congress under the Constitution.

There's really no way around it but by twisting. The first enumerated power is a separate power. It grants nearly-unlimited power to Congress to tax and to spend the proceeds of taxation. It does not grant any powers other than the spending of money, however -- the "general welfare" clause is not an enumerated power by itself, but a modification of the power to tax and spend. Congress cannot for example outlaw body-piercing and claim that this is in service to the general welfare, however much many of us might agree with that sentiment.


----------



## daws101

1 
Generally speaking, a semicolon is used to mark a discontinuity or pause in a sentence for which a comma is not strong enough. For example, "He couldn't find his calculus book, his notes or his calculator; he was going to fail his math test."

2 
When two independent clauses are combined into a single sentence without a conjunction (and, or, but) connecting them, a semicolon usually works. For example, "I hated history in high school; I liked English."

3 
Even if the two independent clauses are connected by a conjunction, you may use a semicolon rather than a comma to separate them if the clauses are long or themselves full of commas. For example, "Mr. Ring, who taught trigonometry, American history and advanced basket weaving, entertained his students by juggling, yodeling and dancing the merengue; but the principal didn't appreciate his unusual methods and canned him."

4 
If commas are used in a sentence to separate items in a list, the semicolon is often useful to mark a more significant break in continuity. For example, "In her report she listed the populations of San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles, California; and Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas."



Read more: How to Use a Semicolon | eHow.com How to Use a Semicolon | eHow.com


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A semi-colon is used to link that which comes after it to that which comes after it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. A semicolon implies no link whatsoever. Here's a rule of thumb: wherever you see a semicolon used properly, it can be replaced by a period. The semicolon serves essentially the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madison explained it best in what I quoted in stating that if it really is YOUR interpretation this is correct then the enumerated powers shouldn't even be there in the first place. What point is there in being more specific in what government is allowed to spend money on, if all they really have to do is adhere to a broad interpretation of the clause itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the first enumerated power is a spending power. The others are different, and each is separate from the first power just as it is separate from them. The power to tax and spend does not imply: [note the colon, not semicolon, here for future grammatical reference]
> 
> 1) the power to borrow money;
> 2) the power to regulate commerce;
> 3) any functions of criminal law, including prescribing punishments for such things as counterfeiting or piracy;
> 4) the power to set standards of weights and measures, or to legislate copyright, trademark, and patent law;
> 5) the power to coin money;
> 6) the power to raise armies and navies (as this requires many actions besides spending money);
> 7) the power to declare war or make rules governing the conduct in war or prescribe rules for the militia;
> 8) the power to establish courts of law; or
> 9) the complete legislative authority over the U.S. capital.
> 
> Nor does it encompass all laws necessary and proper to carrying out the powers granted Congress under the Constitution.
> 
> There's really no way around it but by twisting. The first enumerated power is a separate power. It grants nearly-unlimited power to Congress to tax and to spend the proceeds of taxation. It does not grant any powers other than the spending of money, however -- the "general welfare" clause is not an enumerated power by itself, but a modification of the power to tax and spend. Congress cannot for example outlaw body-piercing and claim that this is in service to the general welfare, however much many of us might agree with that sentiment.
Click to expand...


And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.



As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
> 
> The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.
Click to expand...


If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
Click to expand...


Hundreds? Not quite.  There were 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention and they all had some influence in it, however, James Madison is considered to be the "Father of the Constitution."  Madison also co-authored the _Federalist Papers_, which were written to explain how the Constitution worked.


----------



## The T

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think it was designed to keep people like you from ruling over the rest of us like a bunch of authoritarian fucktards.
Click to expand...

But even the Authoritarinas are having thier way by crafting LAW that ultimately usurps the Constitution and the _Anendment process._

Note how long it has taken us to get where we are _legislatively?_

And of Amndments and the process? The two that started the roller coaster ride downhill were the 16th and 17th...and the creation of the Federal Reserve...and ALL to make the process slow...but easier to impliment. (Courtesy of the _Progressives_ of the time I might add).


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> america-was-born-liberal.[/url]



if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.



Whether Madison is the primary author or not is of no matter; all that matters is how the Court interprets the Founding Document. 

The justices base their rulings on primary documents of the Foundation Era, case law prior to the Foundation Era, and subsequent Court rulings. 



> The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.



The issue has nothing to do with libs or falling back on anything. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means through the process of judicial review. 



> Hundreds? Not quite. There were 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention and they all had some influence in it, however, James Madison is considered to be the "Father of the Constitution." Madison also co-authored the Federalist Papers, which were written to explain how the Constitution worked.



The Framers were not of one mind, they did not speak with one voice. Indeed, many changed their positions on Federalism during their lives.



> if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government.



Where would anyone get the idea that liberals want unlimited central government? 

Liberals have been at the forefront of limiting government with regard to 4th Amendment privacy and search and seizure rights, 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights. 

Moreover, liberals are also at the forefront of combating state government and other local jurisdictions efforts to violate the rights of their citizens; all governments have the capacity to overreach and preempt civil liberties, not just the Federal government.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?



Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.*
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with us?  Apparently education would be a good place to start.  I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Here's an explanation:  You have no idea what you're talking about and are basing your entire thesis on talking points spun by talking heads.


----------



## editec

*



The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal. 


So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
		
Click to expand...

 
The above is employing an intellectually dishonest debating technique known as BEGGING THE QUESTION.


begging the question - logical fallacies - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
*


----------



## Sallow

Brutus said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Julia Childs spied for Stalin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??
> 
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..and Conservatives had very little to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> conservative are for limited government. That was the entire purpose of the Revolution, Declaration and Constitution. Why not go to Cuba if you are afraid of freedom?
Click to expand...


You said "Liberals" spied for Stalin.

Julia Childs, well known television chef and a liberal democrat.

Guess what..she was a spy too.

Blows your stupidity out the door..don't it?

Recalling Julia Child, Oyster-Loving Idealist - New York Times



> Few of the obituaries published after Mrs. Child's death last Friday at the age of 91 mentioned that she was a passionate liberal Democrat, a friend when she lived in Cambridge, Mass., of neighbors like the economist John Kenneth Galbraith. She campaigned for years for Planned Parenthood and other causes, and she greatly admired John, Robert and Edward Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.


----------



## Sallow

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What restrictions?
> 
> Congress has very broad powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..
> 
> So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".
> 
> Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.
Click to expand...


No conservative picked up on this one..eh?

No big surprise here.

Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.


----------



## editec

Sallow said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..
> 
> So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".
> 
> Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No conservative picked up on this one..eh?
> 
> No big surprise here.
> 
> Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.
Click to expand...

 
Of COURSE they're going to ignore this.

These clowns pick and choose which things they like about the floundering fathers and pretend that everything else about them never happened.

FREE TRADE -  the floundering fathers LOATHED the idea.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..
> 
> So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".
> 
> Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No conservative picked up on this one..eh?
> 
> No big surprise here.
> 
> Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of COURSE they're going to ignore this.
> 
> These clowns pick and choose which things they like about the floundering fathers and pretend that everything else about them never happened.
> 
> FREE TRADE -  the floundering fathers LOATHED the idea.
Click to expand...


Wasn't ignored by me. Go back and read a bit before you two get too full of yourselves.


----------



## Dragon

Regarding Madison and the Constitution, a good examination of the process by which the document was created shows it to be the work of no single man, but a compromise among many divergent interests and the work of many men. I stand by my "hundreds" statement; although there were only 55 delegates at the convention, all of them had others to whom they reported or who were influential on their thinking.

One should not take a bit of rhetoric literally. Madison is called the "father of the Constitution" not because he wrote it, but because his diplomatic initiatives at the convention probably allowed it to be adopted. He was certainly one of the delegates whose views were most influential; however, as noted above, so was Alexander Hamilton, who diverged from Madison sharply. If we are talking strictly about the extent to which a delegate's views influenced the final product, it is Hamilton, not Madison, who arguably deserves to be called "Father of the Constitution."

The plain and obvious sense of the tax and spend clause is the way I have described it, which is also the way that the courts have interpreted it. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in the ways that the Constitution allows, and to spend the revenues so collected, to pay the debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. That's what it says, and in any straightforward common-sense interpretation that's what it means. Those who want it to mean something else have to twist it and make weird arguments based on punctuation or just pulled out of their backsides, as Madison did as president when vetoing an infrastructure spending bill (of course, he actually required no justification; as president he had the authority to veto the bill simply because he didn't want to spend the money, and did not require it to be unconstitutional).

This power, and also the regulation of commerce clause, are very, very broad powers of government. The other enumerated powers are more narrow and specific. But in these two we see the intent of the framers to create a government that had enough authority in potential, and was sufficiently flexible, to stand the test of time. These men knew how much things had changed over the last few centuries, and although they could not have anticipated the specific nature of the world in which we live today, they had to have known it would be radically different from their own.

The idea that the framers intended to create a small, weak, powerless government simply had no basis in reality.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
> 
> The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.
> 
> The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. *As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison*.
Click to expand...


It ISN'T possible.  If the court says something is constitutional, it is.  If a later court says it isn't, then it isn't.  If you don't agree, then you don't really understand the court at all.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
> 
> The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.
> 
> The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. *As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ISN'T possible.  If the court says something is constitutional, it is.  If a later court says it isn't, then it isn't.  If you don't agree, then you don't really understand the court at all.
Click to expand...


I understand it completely. You're argument is completely asanine. Perhaps a more extreme argument would make you see how ridiculous it is. If a court, for whatever reason, ruled that people accussed of murder were not entitled to a trial, would that be a constitutional decision?


----------



## jillian

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
> 
> The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.
> 
> The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.
Click to expand...


no. it is NOT possible for the supreme court to make an unconstitutional decision. that would be like claiming an "unconstitutional amendment" could be placed in the constitution.

the court can make a bad decision. it can make a decision one disagrees with. but it can't make an unconstitutional decision. by definition, that is not possible.

a bit of study, starting with Marbury v Madison, might be of assistance to you if you're actually interested in getting it right.


----------



## midcan5

Brutus said:


> ...wanting freedom is brain dead to a liberal isn't it??



So tell us what freedom is?  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html Oh, and our first president disagrees. 

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


----------



## Bern80

jillian said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.
> 
> The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.
> 
> The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. it is NOT possible for the supreme court to make an unconstitutional decision. that would be like claiming an "unconstitutional amendment" could be placed in the constitution.
> 
> the court can make a bad decision. it can make a decision one disagrees with. but it can't make an unconstitutional decision. by definition, that is not possible.
> 
> a bit of study, starting with Marbury v Madison, might be of assistance to you if you're actually interested in getting it right.
Click to expand...


So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?



It was an absurd hypothetical, as no court would ever rule that those accused of murder are not entitled to a trial, but if one did, that would not be an "unconstitutional" ruling. It would be a bad ruling, a stupid ruling, and a certain-to-be-overturned ruling, but an unconstitutional court ruling is an oxymoron. Only laws can be unconstitutional, not court rulings.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an absurd hypothetical, as no court would ever rule that those accused of murder are not entitled to a trial, but if one did, that would not be an "unconstitutional" ruling. It would be a bad ruling, a stupid ruling, and a certain-to-be-overturned ruling, but an unconstitutional court ruling is an oxymoron. Only laws can be unconstitutional, not court rulings.
Click to expand...


The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always. It is an argument that reeks of personal convenience for both people like yourself and those in power. Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is. Clearly a position you haven't considered the meaning of. It would mean that the constitution itself is basically meaningless because it is not the final say on what is constituonal. The reality is whatever a judge says is constittuional is constitutional. How that doesn't said completely ridiculous to either of you is beyond me. If that is true it would mean the way the constitution is modified is not through the ammendment process as outlined in the document but rather through court rulings.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.



Correct.



> Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.



I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)

A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.

It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)
> 
> A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.
> 
> It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.
Click to expand...


Declaring something so doesn't make it so. I would acquiesce only that perhaps both of our views could be right. Regardless of what a judge may rule, it doesn't change the observable fact that denying a person due process is the opposite of what the constitution says people have a right to.


----------



## daws101

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)
> 
> A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.
> 
> It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring something so doesn't make it so. I would acquiesce only that perhaps both of our views could be right. Regardless of what a judge may rule, it doesn't change the observable fact that denying a person due process is the opposite of what the constitution says people have a right to.
Click to expand...

please list some real life examples of lack of due process.


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
Click to expand...


Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so.



of course that is incorrect. All who hold office swear to preserve and protect the Constitution. If the Supremes do something too liberal and unconstitutional the Congress can pass a new law and/or pack the court with more conservative judges.

Justice Marshall, a flaming liberal, said," you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes." That is the sort of liberal danger from which the Congress hopefully will defend us.


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
Click to expand...

wondered when some one would bring up the Nazis ..talk about limited government!


----------



## Brutus

daws101 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wondered when some one would bring up the Nazis ..talk about limited government!
Click to expand...


Nazis like strong central government and so do liberals and Communists. Why did you think the liberals spied for Stalin?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
Click to expand...


Your trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".


----------



## daws101

AVG-JOE said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
Click to expand...

bump!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

peach174 said:


> Exactly my question also.
> Why do Dems and some Repubs believe in Socialism?
> It has never worked.


Its working right now. We have socialism for roads, highways, school, retirement and disability insurance, science, public media, dams, parks, health care for the old and poor, and for every active and many inactive members of the U.S. military ... I could go on. And all of those on the list range from the best in the world (highways) to while maybe not the best, still better than most (schools). Generally quite successful, with room for improvement - which is the story of our nation's history.


> Our Constitution is for a Republic form of government, not communism, not socialism or Marxism.


A Republican form of government is a government controlled by the public. The Founders laid out a framework, not an ideology. They couldn't even agree themselves on ideology, as is blatantly evident by their failure to rectify the issue of slavery.



> None of these 3 types of governments ever work, they always collapse eventually.


All governments always collapse eventually.



> Hell that is why China went Capitalistic because they were going downhill with complete communism.


With complete communism? You seem to be suggesting a "little bit" of communism is A-OK.Tell you what, since you love China so much, go live their.


----------



## AVG-JOE

daws101 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bump!!!
Click to expand...


And grind?


----------



## daws101

AVG-JOE said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> bump!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And grind?
Click to expand...

don't break a hip!


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.
> 
> Liberalism is just an idea.  America is still a nation that protects ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
Click to expand...


The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt. 

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.
> 
> You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.
Click to expand...

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> You have to face facts



You first.


----------



## Brutus

daws101 said:


> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous



as a liberal you are of course perfectly and 100% ignorant. Jefferson surveyed all of all human history and created America based on the idea the big government or liberal government was evil, and that small or conservative government was not. 


Welcome to your first lesson in American History. This is a huge day for you, liberal.

Jefferson:
My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.


----------



## Bfgrn

daws101 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.
> 
> You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
Click to expand...


And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.


----------



## Brutus

Bfgrn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.
> 
> You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
Click to expand...


more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confuciuss disciple, Mencius, who wrote that in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important. And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasnt responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jewsmeaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripidess attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others efforts through taxation and the provision of protection. Oppenheimer distinguished between the political means of acquiring wealthtaking itand the economic meansproduction and exchange.


----------



## daws101

brutus said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a liberal you are of course perfectly and 100% ignorant. Jefferson surveyed all of all human history and created america based on the idea the big government or liberal government was evil, and that small or conservative government was not.
> 
> 
> Welcome to your first lesson in american history. This is a huge day for you, liberal.
> 
> Jefferson:
> My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.
> 
> -our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: By consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
> 
> -sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
> 
> -the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that i wish it to be always kept alive.
> 
> -most bad government has grown out of too much government.
Click to expand...

lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.

Definition of COCKSURE
1: feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds 
2: marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : cocky 
&#8212; cock·sure·ly adverb 
&#8212; cock·sure·ness noun 
 See cocksure defined for English-language learners »
See cocksure defined for kids »
Examples of COCKSURE
<his cocksure assertion that he could bed any woman of his choice> 
<you're always so cocksure about everything> 
Origin of COCKSURE
probably from 1cock + sure
First Known Use: 1608


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more perfect liberal ignorance:
> 
> Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confuciuss disciple, Mencius, who wrote that in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important. And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasnt responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jewsmeaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripidess attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.
> 
> Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others efforts through taxation and the provision of protection. Oppenheimer distinguished between the political means of acquiring wealthtaking itand the economic meansproduction and exchange.
Click to expand...

prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Nazi ideas, for example,  and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.
> 
> You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.
Click to expand...


 One of the finest jobs of Shot-Gun Political Labeling to prove nothing I've ever seen.  Kudos.
Got Link?


----------



## AVG-JOE

daws101 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more perfect liberal ignorance:
> 
> Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confuciuss disciple, Mencius, who wrote that in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important. And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasnt responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jewsmeaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripidess attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.
> 
> Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others efforts through taxation and the provision of protection. Oppenheimer distinguished between the political means of acquiring wealthtaking itand the economic meansproduction and exchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!
Click to expand...


Now?!?

What do you mean *now?*

This thread is now seven pages deep in bullshit!


----------



## Brutus

daws101 said:


> lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.



of course if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is- right, liberal? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?


----------



## Photonic

Ya vol mein Führer.

Bash those stupid fuckers who dare to speak out against the only true form of government, crush their puny thoughts that are different to what we believe in!

Heil!


----------



## Bfgrn

Brutus said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some *modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German *ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more perfect liberal ignorance:
> 
> Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confuciuss disciple, Mencius, who wrote that in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important. And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasnt responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jewsmeaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripidess attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.
> 
> Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others efforts through taxation and the provision of protection. Oppenheimer distinguished between the political means of acquiring wealthtaking itand the economic meansproduction and exchange.
Click to expand...


Franz Oppenheimer (born 30 March 1864 in Berlin; died 30 September 1943 in Los Angeles) *was a 19th century German-Jewish sociologist and political economist*, who published also in the area of the fundamental sociology of the state.

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state. wiki


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would   be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.
> 
> You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the &#8220;state&#8221; as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
Click to expand...


And that makes it an invalid ideology how exactly? At the time there was no such concept as libertarianism per se. But as we've noted the same word can change meaning over time (i.e. liberal idology then is clearly not liberal ideology now). I think it is fairly reasonable argument that libertarian now is about as close as any ideology to what liberal was then.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.*
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with us?  Apparently education would be a good place to start.  I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.


----------



## Bern80

AVG-JOE said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with us?  Apparently education would be a good place to start.  I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.
Click to expand...


That isn't true Joe. Both sides are equaly guilty of curbing people's freedom. Republican's have things they don't want people to be able to do and so do Democrats.


----------



## daws101

AVG-JOE said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> more perfect liberal ignorance:
> 
> Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confuciuss disciple, Mencius, who wrote that in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important. And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasnt responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jewsmeaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripidess attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.
> 
> Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others efforts through taxation and the provision of protection. Oppenheimer distinguished between the political means of acquiring wealthtaking itand the economic meansproduction and exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> prehistory? now you're just makin shit up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now?!?
> 
> What do you mean *now?*
> 
> This thread is now seven pages deep in bullshit!
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...your intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation just screams of the cocksuredness of the truly ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is- right, liberal? What does your fear tell you about liberalism?
Click to expand...

what fear? as to this statement:"if there was "intentional misinterpretation" you would not be so afraid to point out exacxtly where it is" where it is, is all of it!
or is that too tough a concept?


----------



## daws101

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the state as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an invalid ideology how exactly? At the time there was no such concept as libertarianism per se. But as we've noted the same word can change meaning over time (i.e. liberal idology then is clearly not liberal ideology now). I think it is fairly reasonable argument that libertarian now is about as close as any ideology to what liberal was then.
Click to expand...

Time and context...


----------



## jgarden

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?


*Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!

Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?*


----------



## 007

jgarden said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> *Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?*
Click to expand...


Bull shit. If that was true then liberals wouldn't spend 24/7 trying to change, misinterpret and ignore it.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

Pale Rider said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> *Have you ever actually read the Constitution - it was probably the most "liberal" document of its kind during the 18thC!
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it support one particular political and/or economic ideology?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit. If that was true then liberals wouldn't spend 24/7 trying to change, misinterpret and ignore it.
Click to expand...


1. The constitution was designed to be changed.

2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.

3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.


----------



## Dragon

JamesInFlorida said:


> 1. The constitution was designed to be changed.



This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.



> 2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.



This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.



> 3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.



This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.

If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.


----------



## Katzndogz

The Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of  any other.

John Adams quotes


----------



## Photonic

Katzndogz said:


> The Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of  any other.
> 
> John Adams quotes



I can beat that.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819


Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.


I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825


May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)


----------



## JamesInFlorida

Dragon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The constitution was designed to be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.
> 
> If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.
Click to expand...


2. That's a cop-op. Do you really think the writers of the constitution played semantics sand said "well only congress can make it 'official' but the administration can start a war whenever they choose"? Give me a break. Modern politicians have taken that word way out of context-so they have more power.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Bern80 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't true Joe. Both sides are equaly guilty of curbing people's freedom. Republican's have things they don't want people to be able to do and so do Democrats.
Click to expand...


I agree.  The republicans and democrats both have a long history of meddling in personal lives.  The point I was trying to make is that liberals are forced to call themselves democrat or independent because of the republican stance on social issues and damn few democrats are actually liberals.


----------



## rdean

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



Liberals wrote the constitution.


----------



## daws101

rdean said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals wrote the constitution.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

The US Constitution was written by Liberals

Our founding fathers were liberals. The question is.......why do we tolerate Conservatives?

Because the Constitution allows you that freedom


----------



## daws101

rightwinger said:


> The US Constitution was written by Liberals
> 
> Our founding fathers were liberals. The question is.......why do we tolerate Conservatives?
> 
> Because the Constitution allows you that freedom


 and because the native americans failed to kill all the Puritans....


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> that's really funny..... you think the constitution was intended to make half the country illegal?
> 
> i'm not even going to bother telling you how braindead that is.


That's good, as you'd probably screw it up.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
Click to expand...

In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those programs outlaw liberalism.
> 
> Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
> 
> This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...

False.
The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money.  If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
Click to expand...

Indeded not.
The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either.


Absolutely false.  The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.


----------



## Katzndogz

Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer.  John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people   As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.


----------



## daws101

Katzndogz said:


> Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer.  John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people   As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.


bullshit, Americans are no more immoral or less religious  then they were in the 18th century it only seems that way due to communication technology.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money.  If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.



If creating the legislation is necessary to spend money, then yes, the power to spend money DOES convey the power to create the legislation. However, let's be clear. The first clause of I.8 does not convey any other power than to tax and spend. It does not allow Congress to prescribe any criminal penalties for any crimes, other than punishment for tax evasion. It does not allow Congress to regulate any behavior on the part of business, individuals, or anything else, except as necessary to lay and collect taxes.

I pointed this out to someone on another thread, who wanted to say that the "general welfare" clause empowered Congress to create the EPA. It did not, because the EPA makes regulations regarding pollution emissions and prescribes penalties for violating those regulations, and this cannot be encompassed by taxing and spending. So there's a concrete example for you. I.8(1) is NOT a universal-government provision. But it IS a universal tax-and-spend provision.

Many people fail to understand this, in one direction or another.

The other very broad enumerated power is of course the regulation of commerce clause (which is the real authority behind the EPA). Just about everything that conservatives object to in government activity over the past few decades, and just about everything they're inclined to howl "unconstitutional" about, is authorized by either that or the tax and spend clause. But the language is there. If you don't like it, complain to the Founding Fathers.



> The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.



No, it doesn't, because raising an army implies more than just taxing and spending. Congress must also be authorized to make laws pertinent to the creation of the army, such as authorizing codes of military justice, conscription, specifying arms and uniforms, and so on, which go beyond merely raising money and spending it. All of those non-monetary functions to creating a military force are authorized by those appropriate enumerated powers.


----------



## rightwinger

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
> Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as classical liberalism. Each era has it's own challenges. Liberals of each era develop new concepts to deal with those challenges. What doesn't change is conservatives trying to block those initiatives


----------



## rightwinger

daws101 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer.  John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people   As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, Americans are no more immoral or less religious  then they were in the 18th century it only seems that way due to communication technology.
Click to expand...


Americans are much more moral than they were in Adams time. You can start with slavery and move on to native American rights, womens rights, gay rights

The individual has many more rights than they did in Adams day

And you can thank liberals


----------



## Photonic

M14 Shooter said:


> Indeded not.
> The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.






M14 Shooter said:


> Absolutely false.  The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.



So which is it, Sir?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money.  If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.
> 
> 
> 
> If creating the legislation is necessary to spend money, then yes, the power to spend money DOES convey the power to create the legislation.
Click to expand...

No... the power to spend is the power to spend.  The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.



> However, let's be clear. The first clause of I.8 does not convey any other power than to tax and spend.


Correct - it does not give the power to create the legislation necessary to create the programs that allow for that spending.



> The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't, because raising an army implies more than just taxing and spending.
Click to expand...

So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.  
Your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Photonic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeded not.
> The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely false.  The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So which is it, Sir?
Click to expand...

These statements do not contradict one another, so the obvious answer is:
Both.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> No... the power to spend is the power to spend.  The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.



That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that Congress has the power to spend, but does not have the power to pass any laws or acts which spend money.



> So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.



No. There is nothing to Medicare or Social Security that does not involve either taxing or spending. Social Security lays and collects taxes (payroll tax), and it spends money so collected (sends checks for benefits). There is nothing else that this program does.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Dragon said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The constitution was designed to be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.
> 
> *If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.*
Click to expand...


----------



## AVG-JOE

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
> Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.
Click to expand...


Personally I think it stupid to consider 'liberalism' in terms of 'modern' and 'classic' versions, which are polar opposites of each other.  The concept is less than 350 years old.

More likely, the status quo fears the power liberalism gives to the middle and working classes so they use their media power to wrap the concept in blankets of socialism and communism because voters stupid enough to still hold on to the trickle down theory will believe just about anything.

The biggest problem with liberalism is that there are so few American voters willing to expend the energy required to think for themselves, which is a prerequisite for joining the club.


----------



## geauxtohell

Brutus said:


> So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?



Actually, it was designed to keep illiterate morons like you from screwing up the country.

Considering your total and complete impotence when it comes to accomplishing anything of worth in this country (politically speaking), it is doing a fabulous job.


----------



## rightwinger

AVG-JOE said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
> Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I think it stupid to consider 'liberalism' in terms of 'modern' and 'classic' versions, which are polar opposites of each other.  The concept is less than 350 years old.
> 
> More likely, the status quo fears the power liberalism gives to the middle and working classes so they use their media power to wrap the concept in blankets of socialism and communism because voters stupid enough to still hold on to the trickle down theory will believe just about anything.
> 
> The biggest problem with liberalism is that there are so few American voters willing to expend the energy required to think for themselves, which is a prerequisite for joining the club.
Click to expand...


Tea Baggers hold this view that somehow it makes sense for Americans who lived 235 years ago are the ones best suited to decide what is best for our society


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> More likely, the status quo fears the power liberalism gives to the middle and working classes



too stupid and perfectly liberal!! America's greatness is based on freedom from liberal centralized power. America was founded by those who wanted to be free not liberals who wanted power over others.





rightwinger said:


> because voters stupid enough to still hold on to the trickle down theory will believe just about anything.




too stupid! Do you want trickle up: tax cuts to the poor who don't pay taxes anyway so they will invent new products and create new jobs!!. See why we are positive the liberal will have a low IQ?




rightwinger said:


> Tea Baggers hold this view that somehow it makes sense for Americans who lived 235 years ago are the ones best suited to decide what is best for our society



Our founders were the greatest geniues in human history. They created the greatest country in human history because they  understood liberal government had stopped human development for 5 million years.

If you want to go back to Kings or Nazis or communists why not move to Cuba where you belong, liberal!


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.



did you know the Democrats and Republicans almost always disagree when they vote in the Congress. This is because they have opposite philosophies. Conservatives are for freedom from big liberal government while liberals are for bigger and bigger liberal government because they stupidly believe government is magical despite what the last 5 million years has shown.

And now even you know your ABC's


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.



you mean "classical liberal" or modern conservative,.i.e., about freedom and liberty from government.

And now another liberal knows his ABC's


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, the status quo fears the power liberalism gives to the middle and working classes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid and perfectly liberal!! America's greatness is based on freedom from liberal centralized power. America was founded by those who wanted to be free not liberals who wanted power over others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> because voters stupid enough to still hold on to the trickle down theory will believe just about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid! Do you want trickle up: tax cuts to the poor who don't pay taxes anyway so they will invent new products and create new jobs!!. See why we are positive the liberal will have a low IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Baggers hold this view that somehow it makes sense for Americans who lived 235 years ago are the ones best suited to decide what is best for our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our founders were the greatest geniues in human history. They created the greatest country in human history because they  understood liberal government had stopped human development for 5 million years.
> 
> If you want to go back to Kings
> or Nazis or communists why not move to Cuba where you belong, liberal!
Click to expand...


"The greatest geniuses in human history?"

So I guess that 235 years ago they understood what it meant to be the worlds most powerful economic and military superpower. What it meant to be leader of the free world in a global economy. What was required to compete in a global market with instant communications and international competition for resources

The founding fathers never intended to tell future generations what was best for their country. Only a TeaTard would believe that they could


----------



## Brutus

AVG-JOE said:


> I agree.  The republicans and democrats both have a long history of meddling in personal lives.



well this is a good thing as our Founders would have wanted. We don't want to live in a society where people are taught to kill their babies rather than love them, do we?

Do we want to teach our children to have sex with strangers and kill the babies that result? Or, do we want to teach our children to have sex with the person they love and then love the children that result?
Gusee what the liberal wants.


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean "classical liberal" or modern conservative,.i.e., about freedom and liberty from government.
> 
> And now another liberal knows his ABC's
Click to expand...


The term classical liberal was invented by the Conservative propaganda machine to rewrite history and justify how conservatives have been on the wrong side of history


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> "The greatest geniuses in human history?"
> 
> So I guess that 235 years ago they understood what it meant to be the worlds most powerful economic and military superpower. What it meant to be leader of the free world in a global economy. What was required to compete in a global market with instant communications and international competition for resources



yes of course; they understood that freedom from liberal government would be best




rightwinger said:


> The founding fathers never intended to tell future generations what was best for their country. Only a TeaTard would believe that they could



well then why be so afraid  to give your most substantive example of where freedom was not best to demonstrate your case??

See why we are positive that liberals will be slow?


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greatest geniuses in human history?"
> 
> So I guess that 235 years ago they understood what it meant to be the worlds most powerful economic and military superpower. What it meant to be leader of the free world in a global economy. What was required to compete in a global market with instant communications and international competition for resources
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes of course; they understood that freedom from liberal government would be best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers never intended to tell future generations what was best for their country. Only a TeaTard would believe that they could
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then why be so afraid  to give your most substantive example of where freedom was not best to demonstrate your case??
> 
> See why we are positive that liberals will be slow?
Click to expand...


Freedom from liberal government?

You are going to have to show me where in the Constitution it says that


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean "classical liberal" or modern conservative,.i.e., about freedom and liberty from government.
> 
> And now another liberal knows his ABC's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term classical liberal was invented by the Conservative propaganda machine to rewrite history and justify how conservatives have been on the wrong side of history
Click to expand...


perfectly stupid of course. JS Mill was the quintessential classical liberal. He famously wrote, " On Liberty" [from central government]

Our Founders and modern conservatives have the identical philosophy.
If you like kings or nazis why not move to Cuba?


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> You are going to have to show me where in the Constitution it says that



too stupid the entire purpose of the Constitution is to great very limited enumerated powers


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to have to show me where in the Constitution it says that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid the entire purpose of the Constitution is to great very limited enumerated powers
Click to expand...


Far from it

Our Constitution provides a broad framework for how government is constructed. It was never intended to be an end in itself and gives each branch broad powers to execute it's job


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to have to show me where in the Constitution it says that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid the entire purpose of the Constitution is to great very limited enumerated powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far from it
> 
> Our Constitution provides a broad framework for how government is constructed. It was never intended to be an end in itself and gives each branch broad powers to execute it's job
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?

The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid the entire purpose of the Constitution is to great very limited enumerated powers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far from it
> 
> Our Constitution provides a broad framework for how government is constructed. It was never intended to be an end in itself and gives each branch broad powers to execute it's job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?
> 
> The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> 
> 
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson
Click to expand...


Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?

Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... the power to spend is the power to spend.  The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that Congress has the power to spend, but does not have the power to pass any laws or acts which spend money.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said.
I said the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.
The power to pass leguislation that appropriates the funding for the spending is found in clauses 2-17.



> So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is nothing to Medicare or Social Security that does not involve either taxing or spending.
Click to expand...

Horsepucky.  SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement.  The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.


----------



## M14 Shooter

AVG-JOE said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
> Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personally I think it stupid to consider 'liberalism' in terms of 'modern' and 'classic' versions, which are polar opposites of each other.
Click to expand...

I can substitute "circa 1775" for "classic" if you like.
The point, obviously, is that those people described as "liberals" back then had a remarkably different ideoligy than the liberals of today.



> More likely, the status quo fears the power liberalism gives to the middle and working classes so they use their media power to wrap the concept in blankets of socialism and communism because...


... it is accurate.  Liberalsim, circa 1775, is unrealted to the Modern Liberal support for and expansion of the redistributuion of wealth thru the welfare state.  Modern liberals prey on those stupid enough to believe that if they 'vote for me' the government will give them everything they want at the expense of the wealthy.



> The biggest problem with liberalism is that there are so few American voters willing to expend the energy required to think for themselves, which is a prerequisite for joining the club.


Those that think for themselves reject modern liberalism as they understand that it is nothing more than state-enforced involuntary servitude.


----------



## rightwinger

M14 Shooter said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... the power to spend is the power to spend.  The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that Congress has the power to spend, but does not have the power to pass any laws or acts which spend money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's not what I said.
> I said the power to spend does not include the power to appropriate.
> The power to pass leguislation tha appropriates the funding for the spending is found in clauses 2-17.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There is nothing to Medicare or Social Security that does not involve either taxing or spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horsepucky.  SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement.  The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.
Click to expand...


Power to spend does not include Social Security and Medicare?  I think you are about 75 years too late with that argument. Now you may get libertarians to agree with you, but clearly the courts do not


----------



## daws101

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean "classical liberal" or modern conservative,.i.e., about freedom and liberty from government.
> 
> And now another liberal knows his ABC's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term classical liberal was invented by the Conservative propaganda machine to rewrite history and justify how conservatives have been on the wrong side of history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perfectly stupid of course. JS Mill was the quintessential classical liberal. He famously wrote, " On Liberty" [from central government]
> 
> Our Founders and modern conservatives have the identical philosophy.
> If you like kings or nazis why not move to Cuba?
Click to expand...

WTF... kings, royalty are a monarchy nothing in common with the Nazis or communists...guess that's what happens when you're flinging nonsensical shit around.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> [
> No, that's not what I said.
> I said the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.



"Appropriate," as in "appropriations bill," is another word for "spend." Thus, you're saying that the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to spend. Which makes no sense at all.

This is a long-settled issue. I refer you to _United States v. Butler_, the Supreme Court case that struck down the AAA as unconstitutional. It describes very well what is and is not authorized under the first clause of I.8.



> Horsepucky.  SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement.  The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.



Sure it does, as along as all of the regulations, conditions, administration, and enforcement cover ONLY the payment of benefits, which is the case with the Social Security Administration. (Collection of Social Security taxes, also authorized by the first clause, is handled by the IRS instead.)


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> No, that's not what I said.
> I said the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> "Appropriate," as in "appropriations bill," is another word for "spend."
Click to expand...

False.
"Approprriate" , in legal terms, measn to set aside and/or allocate to/for a purpose
This differs from "spend".
And thus, ny point remains:
-The power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.
-The power to create legislation for those appropriations are found in clauses 2-17



> Horsepucky.  SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement.  The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does...
Click to expand...


Thank you for illustrating your unseriousness.  I shan't waste any more time on you.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> "Approprriate" , in legal terms, measn to set aside and/or allocate to/for a purpose
> This differs from "spend".



We are discussing the word in a legislative context, which is subtly different from a legal one.

As I said, the matter is long since settled.

United States v. Butler



			
				United States Supreme Court said:
			
		

> 10. Ours is a dual form of government; in every State there are two Governments -- the State and the United States; each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by the Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. P. 63.
> 
> 11. The Government of the United States is a Government of delegated powers; it has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution and such as are reasonably to be implied from those expressly granted. P. 63
> 
> 12. The Agricultural Adjustment Act does not purport to regulate transactions in interstate or foreign commerce, and the Government in this case does not attempt to sustain it under the commerce clause of the Constitution. P. 63.
> 
> 13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that 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,
> 
> the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.
> 
> 14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.
> 
> 15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]



The Court went on to state that while the power to tax and spend is a very broad power, it is not without limits. The AAA attempted to impose, in effect, a regulation beyond the authority of Congress, by the back-door method of using taxing and spending to do so. On this basis the Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. However, in doing so, the Court also affirmed that a separate and distinct power to tax and spend exists, not confined to the purposes of the other enumerated powers, but rather for any cause that can reasonably be described as "for the common defense and general welfare."

Regarding Social Security, I remind you of the final clause of Article I, Section 8, in which Congress is authorized "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." A law or regulation governing when and to whom and in what amounts Social Security benefits are to be dispersed, is a law necessary and proper to the execution of the power to tax and spend for that purpose. As no Social Security regulation does anything BUT govern when, to whom, and in what amounts Social Security benefits are to be dispersed, they are necessary and proper laws for carrying out the first clause of I.8 in accordance with the Social Security Act.

I am not being "unserious" in the least.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far from it
> 
> Our Constitution provides a broad framework for how government is constructed. It was never intended to be an end in itself and gives each branch broad powers to execute it's job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?
> 
> The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> 
> 
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?
> 
> Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts
Click to expand...


It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says. 

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?
> 
> The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> 
> 
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?
> 
> Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
Click to expand...

Yes - especially in conjunction with Amendment X.
If the power isn't given, it rests with the states or the people.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?
> 
> The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
> -James madison
> 
> 
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?
> 
> Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
> 
> If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?
Click to expand...


Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?
> 
> Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
> 
> If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
Click to expand...


Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.


----------



## Dragon

It's worth noting that Bern80 made reference to "punctuation." I've seen that argument made before. It's asserted that the semicolon at the end of the first clause actually means something, as if it were a colon rather than a semicolon. To cut that off before someone brings it up, let's take a look at that section of the Constitution in whole:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

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; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Note that there is no special punctuation setting the first clause off from the other clauses. Every one of the enumerated powers is ended by a semicolon except for the last one, which, being the last, is ended by a period instead.

The clear and obvious meaning of this clause is exactly what the Court said it was in _Butler_: an independent enumerated power, not subordinate to any of the other enumerated powers.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
> 
> If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
Click to expand...


Why don't you do us a favor?

Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8

We can post it in the humor section


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
> 
> If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
Click to expand...

Liberals use the power of the welfare state to buy votes.
Reduce/eliminate this and their voter base will shrink.
Thus, their incessant desire to expand the power of government.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> Liberals use the power of the welfare state to buy votes.
> Reduce/eliminate this and their voter base will shrink.
> Thus, their incessant desire to expand the power of government.



Pshaw. Instead of playing psychoanalysis games for which you obviously lack the necessary skill and training, why don't you try once more to explain why what you are arguing makes any sense? There's a good kid.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> It's worth noting that Bern80 made reference to "punctuation." I've seen that argument made before. It's asserted that the semicolon at the end of the first clause actually means something, as if it were a colon rather than a semicolon. To cut that off before someone brings it up, let's take a look at that section of the Constitution in whole:
> 
> "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;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> 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; And
> 
> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
> 
> Note that there is no special punctuation setting the first clause off from the other clauses. Every one of the enumerated powers is ended by a semicolon except for the last one, which, being the last, is ended by a period instead.
> 
> The clear and obvious meaning of this clause is exactly what the Court said it was in _Butler_: an independent enumerated power, not subordinate to any of the other enumerated powers.



And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.
> 
> If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
> 
> The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.
Click to expand...


Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor?
> 
> Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8
> 
> We can post it in the humor section
Click to expand...


Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
> 
> The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that
Click to expand...


And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.



There was no one "guy who originally wrote it." The Constitution was written by a committee. And it was AT LEAST as much the work of Madison's co-author of the Federalist Papers, whose interpretation conflicted with Madison's sharply.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor?
> 
> Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8
> 
> We can post it in the humor section
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.
Click to expand...


Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?
> 
> The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.
Click to expand...

The left is more than happy to authoritatively cite the people that put the Constitution together when it suits them - such as, oh, Hamilton, in reference to the 'general welfare clause'.

Of course, none of them can explain how the Hamiltonian view is sound and the Madisonian view is not.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no one "guy who originally wrote it." The Constitution was written by a committee. And it was AT LEAST as much the work of Madison's co-author of the Federalist Papers, whose interpretation conflicted with Madison's sharply.
Click to expand...


I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable. Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional. And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor?
> 
> Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8
> 
> We can post it in the humor section
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not
Click to expand...



Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is. Since you're so keen and askig us to cite things out of the constitution why don't you do so for us? Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is. Since you're so keen and askig us to cite things out of the constitution why don't you do so for us? Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?
Click to expand...


The courts are not infallible, but over time they get things right. Courts will rule one way and then make a correction and rule toward the other side. That is what makes the country great


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is.
Click to expand...

Liberals only consider this when the court makes a decision they do not like.
See:  Heller


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years





> Why exactly do I need to do that?



Because the Constitution exists in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. That you reject the Court&#8217;s authority of judicial review or a particular ruling is irrelevant. Your only recourse is to file suit in Federal court in an effort to overturn a given ruling, amend the Constitution, or advocate for a constitutional convention. 



> I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution.



And they are just as ignorant of its case law.  



> And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government?



Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights. Conservatives for the most part have worked to undermine our rights, allowing for greater government intrusion. 



> Have you really become that dependent on them?



Everyone is equally &#8216;dependent&#8217; on government: for infrastructure, safe food and water, and other regulatory measures guarding against unsafe goods and services. 



> The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.



This makes no sense. 

Again, you&#8217;re not authorized to interpret the Constitution, only the courts may conduct judicial review. 

Everyone is compelled to abide by the Court&#8217;s rulings per the rule of law; and for good reason: everyone can&#8217;t go about following only his &#8216;interpretation&#8217; of the Constitution. 



> Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says?



Because the Framers intended for the Constitution to be subject to interpretation, in the context of the rule of law &#8211; not Holy Writ. The Constitution is a legal document, not merely a &#8216;blueprint of government.' Indeed, what you might perceive to be what the Constitution &#8216;actually says&#8217; is in itself an interpretation.  



> And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.



Framers&#8217; opinions are considered if relevant in a given case, along with legal precedent, case law, and primary and contemporary sources and documents.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable



Yes, of course I was referring to Hamilton. Not that I consider him any more the "sole author" of the Constitution than Madison was. (If he had been, the president would have been elected for life, and had a non-overridable veto.) The document was put together by committee; there was no sole author.

However:



> Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional.



No, likely he would not have, although there was no perceived need for such a program in pre-industrial times, so the issue never arose.

You are somewhat mistaken about what "general welfare" means. It doesn't refer to the welfare of each individual, but rather to the welfare of "the United States" as a whole -- i.e., not to the specific welfare of one particular state or other, which is a state responsibility. A good example (from a later time) is the subsidies that helped build the trans-continental railroads. As these crossed multiple states and benefited the national economy as a whole, they were a federal responsibility rather than that of any state government.

That said, I agree of course that any spending by the federal government must serve the general welfare, but it seems obvious to me that a national old-age pension program does exactly that. The only basis for saying otherwise is that it ought to be a state responsibility, but considering the way people move from one state to another today over the course of their working lives that argument doesn't really hold. 



> And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).



That's untrue. He's just the most obvious and eloquent. George Washington and John Adams were of the same mind and in fact so was the whole Federalist Party.

It's also worth noting that if the framers had wanted the tax-and-spend clause to be restricted to defraying the costs of the other enumerated powers, they did a piss-poor job of writing it down. These were men of no mean legal and literary gifts. As an example of how easy it would have been to avoid all this controversy, I give you the corresponding passage of the Constitution of the Confederate States.

"Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States"

If he Confederates could come up with that language, so could the members of the Constitutional Convention. It seems clear, since they didn't, that they wanted a broad (but not unlimited) power to tax and spend. Perhaps Madison did not, but if so his view did not prevail.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.


When and if it suits them and their political goals.
In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state.  
Thus, an argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.



> Everyone is equally &#8216;dependent&#8217; on government: for infrastructure, safe food and water, and other regulatory measures guarding against unsafe goods and services.


False.  
Those that rely on the government to provide them the means to exercise their rights are necessarily more dependant on government than those that are not.



> Again, you&#8217;re not authorized to interpret the Constitution, only the courts may conduct judicial review.


False.
Evryone is 'authorized' to interpret the Constitutuion.
The difference betwen you and the court is that the court's interpretation carries force.



> Because the Framers intended for the Constitution to be subject to interpretation, in the context of the rule of law


This doesnt answer the question, and, in fact, denotes a failure to understand said question.  The -actual- answer is the practice of Emglish common law, where future decisions are, when possible, based upon previous decisions.  This provides continuity within the system and prevents court decisions from having all the force of a collegiate law review article.



> Framers&#8217; opinions are considered if relevant in a given case, along with legal precedent, case law, and primary and contemporary sources and documents.


Interesting.
Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.
> 
> 
> 
> When and if it suits them and their political goals.
Click to expand...


This is an important point. What you say here is true. Liberals are neither for nor against big government _as such_, but view it, depending on specifics, as either a benefit or a danger.

Liberals have ALWAYS been for the liberty of the common person, and AGAINST the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. I say that because all political philosophies should be defined according to ends, not means. That description of ends fits all liberals from all periods of modern history. It bridges the alleged gap between "classical" liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and "modern" liberals such as Bernie Sanders. Limited government for Jefferson was not an end, it was a means. The end was support for the liberty of the common person against the power of the wealthy elite (such as, ahem, Jefferson himself; some things never change) -- Jefferson simply saw the government as the elite's best servant and enabler, and keeping it as weak as was consistent with national security and general practical considerations was his approach to protecting ordinary people. Modern liberals, faced with the greatly expanded ability of _private_ power to oppress, have resorted to government as the only agency capable of restraining that power. The means have necessarily changed; the ends, however, remain the same.

Where government is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, liberals want government restrained. This applies to the draft, the drug laws, due process, rights of free speech, press, and religion, government accountability and transparency, and any situation where the government threatens to encroach on people's private lives and personal liberty.

Where private power is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, however, liberals want government (carefully channeled by the rule of law) to restrain private power. This applies mostly in economics.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?



Here: 


> The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
> 
> Marbury v. Madison





> When and if it suits them and their political goals.
> In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state. An argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.



Consider the cases of the Warren Court, expanding individual liberty and incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. Opposed mostly by conservatives.

_Cooper v Aaron_ (1958), _Gideon v. Wainwright_ (1963), _Griswold v. Connecticut _(1965), to name but a few. 



> Interesting.
> Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.



The link contains a summary of General Welfare Clause case law: 

US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

See also:

United States v. Butler


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> When and if it suits them and their political goals.
> In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state. An argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the cases of the Warren Court, expanding individual liberty and incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. Opposed mostly by conservatives.
Click to expand...

Tell me you realize that your response does nothing to negate my point.



> Interesting.
> Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.
> 
> 
> 
> The link contains a summary of General Welfare Clause case law:
> US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
> See also:
> United States v. Butler
Click to expand...

Your response does nothing to address what I put to you.
Feel free to try again.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> Your response does nothing to address what I put to you.
> Feel free to try again.



Actually, his response was very much on target. The case of _U.S. v. Butler_ (which is, please note, case law and thus one of the things you asked for) explains the Court's reasoning behind treating the taxation power as an independent power, and the "general welfare" clause as a modifier of the power to tax and spend.

You also made a misstatement when you referred to the Madisonian view of this power as prevailing prior to modern times and the Hamiltonian view more recently. In fact, a Madisonian view, not so much of what the Constitution allows but rather of what ought to be done by the government, prevailed when the Democratic Republicans/Democrats dominated the government, while a more activist role was undertaken when the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans were in charge, but AFAIK there have been no court cases at all that upheld Mr. Madison's view here by striking down acts of Congress that spent outside the authorization of the other enumerated powers. The opinion of the president (such as Mr. Madison was) on the subject is not authoritative, and as already noted, the libertarian view of Mr. Madison as the "author" of the Constitution and so entitled to present "authoritative" views in another sense is factually incorrect.


----------



## Cowman

OP is proof of our failed education system.

Stand with me in mourning, friends.


----------



## Bfgrn

Dragon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.
> 
> 
> 
> When and if it suits them and their political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an important point. What you say here is true. Liberals are neither for nor against big government _as such_, but view it, depending on specifics, as either a benefit or a danger.
> 
> Liberals have ALWAYS been for the liberty of the common person, and AGAINST the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. I say that because all political philosophies should be defined according to ends, not means. That description of ends fits all liberals from all periods of modern history. It bridges the alleged gap between "classical" liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and "modern" liberals such as Bernie Sanders. Limited government for Jefferson was not an end, it was a means. The end was support for the liberty of the common person against the power of the wealthy elite (such as, ahem, Jefferson himself; some things never change) -- Jefferson simply saw the government as the elite's best servant and enabler, and keeping it as weak as was consistent with national security and general practical considerations was his approach to protecting ordinary people. Modern liberals, faced with the greatly expanded ability of _private_ power to oppress, have resorted to government as the only agency capable of restraining that power. The means have necessarily changed; the ends, however, remain the same.
> 
> Where government is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, liberals want government restrained. This applies to the draft, the drug laws, due process, rights of free speech, press, and religion, government accountability and transparency, and any situation where the government threatens to encroach on people's private lives and personal liberty.
> 
> Where private power is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, however, liberals want government (carefully channeled by the rule of law) to restrain private power. This applies mostly in economics.
Click to expand...


Excellent description of my beliefs. As a liberal, I am very skeptical of government, but I am equally or more skeptical of private power i.e. corporations.

My favorite President, quoting another favorite President said it best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

JFK's nephew, Bobby's son is excellent at conveying liberalism and the dangers of private entities.

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House (Bush) has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

RFK Jr - September 10, 2005


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course I was referring to Hamilton. Not that I consider him any more the "sole author" of the Constitution than Madison was. (If he had been, the president would have been elected for life, and had a non-overridable veto.) The document was put together by committee; there was no sole author.
> 
> However:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, likely he would not have, although there was no perceived need for such a program in pre-industrial times, so the issue never arose.
> 
> You are somewhat mistaken about what "general welfare" means. It doesn't refer to the welfare of each individual, but rather to the welfare of "the United States" as a whole -- i.e., not to the specific welfare of one particular state or other, which is a state responsibility. A good example (from a later time) is the subsidies that helped build the trans-continental railroads. As these crossed multiple states and benefited the national economy as a whole, they were a federal responsibility rather than that of any state government.
> 
> That said, I agree of course that any spending by the federal government must serve the general welfare, but it seems obvious to me that a national old-age pension program does exactly that. The only basis for saying otherwise is that it ought to be a state responsibility, but considering the way people move from one state to another today over the course of their working lives that argument doesn't really hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's untrue. He's just the most obvious and eloquent. George Washington and John Adams were of the same mind and in fact so was the whole Federalist Party.
> 
> It's also worth noting that if the framers had wanted the tax-and-spend clause to be restricted to defraying the costs of the other enumerated powers, they did a piss-poor job of writing it down. These were men of no mean legal and literary gifts. As an example of how easy it would have been to avoid all this controversy, I give you the corresponding passage of the Constitution of the Confederate States.
> 
> "Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-
> 
> (I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States"
> 
> If he Confederates could come up with that language, so could the members of the Constitutional Convention. It seems clear, since they didn't, that they wanted a broad (but not unlimited) power to tax and spend. Perhaps Madison did not, but if so his view did not prevail.
Click to expand...


But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?


----------



## midcan5

"In a series of elegant and illuminating essays, Wood explores the ideological origins of the revolution-from ancient Rome to the European Enlightenment- and the founders' attempts to forge an American democracy. As Wood reveals, while the founders hoped to create a virtuous republic of yeoman farmers and uninterested leaders, they instead gave birth to a sprawling, licentious, and materialistic popular democracy." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Idea-America-Reflections-United-States/dp/1594202907/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1]Amazon.com: The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States (9781594202902): Gordon S. Wood: Books[/ame]


There should be a History of ideas added to the curriculum of all schools so that when propagandists of the right or left leave out the complexity of change in society, the evolution of politics and culture, the reader can instantly smell the BS.

*"This important shift in Wood&#8217;s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. * Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood&#8217;s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone &#8212; without a commitment to shared sacrifice &#8212; is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good."  Tim Casey  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper


Also worth your time on Ideas and history.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Mind-Intellectual-History-Century/dp/0060084383/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/0060935642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780060935641): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Reality-Studies-Ideas-History/dp/0374260923/ref=lh_ni_t]Amazon.com: The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History (9780374260927): Isaiah Berlin, Henry Hardy, Patrick Gardiner: Books[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?



If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.
Click to expand...


Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending. They have to tax FOR something and they have to spend it ON something. The point is that it is a list granting the fed authority over specific areas. The fact that it is a specific list alone points to the idea that the framers intended the power of the fed to be limited. There is no other reason to include that level of specificity.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending.



Sure it can. For example, the government can repair a highway by contracting with a private construction company to do the work. The government doesn't have to pass any laws or make any regulations or legislate in any way to do this. All it has to do is pay the company that's doing the work.



> They have to tax FOR something and they have to spend it ON something. The point is that it is a list granting the fed authority over specific areas. The fact that it is a specific list alone points to the idea that the framers intended the power of the fed to be limited. There is no other reason to include that level of specificity.



This is not in dispute. The power of the federal government IS limited. It IS a government of enumerated powers, unlike the state governments. But the power to tax and spend is one of those enumerated powers, and it's restricted only in that any spending or taxing must be to pay the debts or provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and that all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. That's the plain language of the document.

The other enumerated powers are not specifications of ways the government can spend money. They are other, separate enumerated powers, each in itself.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending.
Click to expand...

You can raise an army thru simple spending pursuant to the 'common defense clauuse' and, thru the elastic clause. create the regulations necessary and proper relevant to same.  Same with a navy.

So...  the fact that Congress would not have had the power to do those things unless it was  specifically empowered to do so negates the entire argument that the 'general welfare clause' provides the power to create SocSec, etc.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> You can raise an army thru simple spending pursuant to the 'common defense clauuse' and, thru the elastic clause. create the regulations necessary and proper relevant to same.  Same with a navy.



Incorrect. There are many things that have to be done with regard to raising an army and navy that aren't encompassed by spending money, and that the "elastic clause" (I suppose you mean the "necessary and proper" clause) only provides for because the power to raise an army and navy are specifically enumerated. Congress also has to provide for discipline, military laws and regulations, all sorts of powers involving determining the rules under which soldiers operated. It can do none of that simply by spending money; an army is not a private company.

The problem here is that while the taxation clause does allow Congress to spend money "to provide for the common defense," it doesn't authorize Congress to do anything ELSE for the common defense, and the "necessary and proper" clause as applied to the taxation clause only empowers Congress to do whatever it has to in order to lay and collect taxes and spend money.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> This is not in dispute. The power of the federal government IS limited. It IS a government of enumerated powers, unlike the state governments. But the power to tax and spend is one of those enumerated powers, and it's restricted only in that any spending or taxing must be to pay the debts or provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and that all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. That's the plain language of the document.



The power to tax and spend on pretty much anything is no limitation of power at all. As another poster pointed out, if there were no specific limits set on what the fed could spend money then there would be no need for the 10th ammendment. Education is a good example. If we were to ask the hypothetical question who has the authority/obligation to fund education. So I go through and I read the constitution. I'm going to come to Article I, Section 8 first where I might be convinced that well education is certainly in the general welfare, so it must be the feds job to fund education. But then I get to the 10th ammendment which reads;



> _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. _



I see that and I think okay, where again was the federal government given the power/authority over education? Other than a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause that such funding via taxation is in the general welfare of the country, no where is any specific authority found. Yet if you side with the general welfare clause anyway as granting that authority it begs some bigger questions. Like what _doesn't_ the fed have the authority to tax for? If they have the authority to tax for pretty much anything what is the point of the 10th ammendment and thus what is the point of a republic of 50 states?



Dragon said:


> The other enumerated powers are not specifications of ways the government can spend money. They are other, separate enumerated powers, each in itself.



And again that isn't how many of the framer's themselves interpreted it. That is on thing Madison was rather clear about. The list of enumerated powers refers to the clause preceeding it.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> The power to tax and spend on pretty much anything is no limitation of power at all.



I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:

1) Outlaw body piercing.
2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.

Any of these measures could be justified as "providing for the general welfare." None of them go against the Bill of Rights or any other affirmative restrictions on government. But none of them are authorized by the power actually granted to Congress, which is to tax and spend for the general welfare -- not to do whatever the hell it wants for the general welfare.



> As another poster pointed out, if there were no specific limits set on what the fed could spend money then there would be no need for the 10th amendment.



Well, in my opinion there is no need for the 10th Amendment. Its language is just a restatement of the whole concept of federalism: all powers delegated to the federal government belong to it; all those not so delegated belong either to the states, or to no level of government, being retained by the people. Yeah, that about covers all the possibilities.

I guess you could say that the 10th Amendment just reaffirmed that Congress has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution, in case anyone had any doubts about that.



> And again that isn't how many of the framer's themselves interpreted it. That is on thing Madison was rather clear about. The list of enumerated powers refers to the clause preceeding it.



Yes, I realize that's how Madison interpreted it, but so what? Obviously, his view of things didn't prevail. If it had, the language of that clause would have been different. He was not the author of the Constitution; it was written by a committee, and represents many compromises. On that point, he did not get his way.

As president, he was of course empowered to veto any act of Congress he wanted to, on any pretext. He vetoed the bill to fund the Erie Canal, on that pretext. He had the legal right. That doesn't mean his opinion on the matter was sound, either legally or politically.


----------



## Bern80

Dragon said:


> I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:
> 
> 1) Outlaw body piercing.
> 2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
> 3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
> 4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.
> 
> Any of these measures could be justified as "providing for the general welfare." None of them go against the Bill of Rights or any other affirmative restrictions on government. But none of them are authorized by the power actually granted to Congress, which is to tax and spend for the general welfare -- not to do whatever the hell it wants for the general welfare.



ergo, if government can basically justify anything to be in the general welfare so to then can it tax for anything it decides to be in the general welfare.



Dragon said:


> Well, in my opinion there is no need for the 10th Amendment. Its language is just a restatement of the whole concept of federalism: all powers delegated to the federal government belong to it; all those not so delegated belong either to the states, or to no level of government, being retained by the people. Yeah, that about covers all the possibilities.
> 
> I guess you could say that the 10th Amendment just reaffirmed that Congress has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution, in case anyone had any doubts about that.



That is a common argument. The problem is without it, it isn't much of a stretch to find very little if anything that the fed doesn't have delegated power over. The ammendment should be a clue to most people that there in fact are things the federal government does not have any authority over.




Dragon said:


> Yes, I realize that's how Madison interpreted it, but so what? Obviously, his view of things didn't prevail. If it had, the language of that clause would have been different. He was not the author of the Constitution; it was written by a committee, and represents many compromises. On that point, he did not get his way.



Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate. To the notion that his view didn't prevail in the courts is what one should say 'so what' to. He wrote the document, and later went on to tell people specifically how that section was to be interpreted. That courts decided to rule the other way doesn't make him any less right. What it really means, Dragon, is that people in a governmental position of power decided to grant themselves more power. That's the reality of the future rulings.


----------



## Dragon

Bern80 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:
> 
> 1) Outlaw body piercing.
> 2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
> 3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
> 4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ergo, if government can basically justify anything to be in the general welfare so to then can it tax for anything it decides to be in the general welfare.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it still can't do any of the things I listed above. The power to tax and spend is not a universal power. Any of the powers above would require imposing criminal penalties, for example. Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.



> That is a common argument. The problem is without it, it isn't much of a stretch to find very little if anything that the fed doesn't have delegated power over. The ammendment should be a clue to most people that there in fact are things the federal government does not have any authority over.



Well, as I pointed out above, and as the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, there ARE limits to the federal government's power. That power includes a lot of things that you seem to think it ought not to be doing, but nonetheless it's not unlimited.

Remember that the Bill of Rights was added after the fact. It was not part of the original proposed Constitution. It was the product of a populist, Occupy-Wall-Street-like rebellion, which was able to get a bill of rights added as a condition of ratifying the document. So the 10th Amendment, like the other parts of the BoR, was not part of the Founding Fathers' original design. H/J/M argued against it in the Federalist Papers; in fact -- I forget which one it was -- one of them argued that having a Bill of Rights might actually cause problems because it would create the impression that no other rights existed except as designated. Which is of course pure BS (although maybe that argument is the reason the 9th is in there).

Hmm. I just looked through the language in the unmodified Constitution, and there really is nothing in there to say that Congress doesn't have any other powers than those granted. So maybe the 10th was necessary after all. Otherwise, it wouldn't be clear that Congress couldn't do something not even remotely in one of the enumerated powers, on the grounds that, well, it says we CAN do those things, but it doesn't say we CAN'T do anything else.

In any case, though, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what Congress is or is not authorized to do by the Constitution, it only clarifies that whatever it's not authorized to do remains a state power, or one retained by the people.



> Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate.



No, that is simply false. He is known as the "Father of the Constitution" for another reason entirely, being one of the main people pushing for major revisions to the Articles of Confederation. It could be argued that without him, there wouldn't have even been a constitutional convention, which is enough to merit the title, but in no way implies authorship. If you look at the actual records of how the convention operated, you'll find that his principle role other than diplomacy was as a proponent of the "Virginia Plan." See here: Virginia Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Virginia Plan would have had two houses of the legislature, both proportional to the population of the states, and is also therefore known as the "Large State Plan." It was opposed by delegates from small states for obvious reasons. The plan of Congress ultimately approved was a compromise between Madison's plan and the "Small State Plan," which called for a single delegate per state to Congress in a unicameral legislature (just as in the Articles of Confederation). This was one of many compromises in the document. Others concerned the president, and also the powers delegated to Congress.

The claim that Madison "wrote the Constitution" simply has no basis in fact.


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.



it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Brutus said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.
Click to expand...

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.


----------



## Dragon

M14 Shooter said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a criminal penalty.
> If it were, there'd need to be a trial.
Click to expand...


And it would be clearly unconstitutional, too. The way it's written, with no criminal penalties only a tax, it's not so clear and that's why the Supreme Court has it now.


----------



## Brutus

M14 Shooter said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a criminal penalty.
> If it were, there'd need to be a trial.
Click to expand...


Tax fraud is a criminal act


----------



## M14 Shooter

Brutus said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a criminal penalty.
> If it were, there'd need to be a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax fraud is a criminal act
Click to expand...

Yes... but the penalty for not carrying insurance is the tax itself.


----------



## Dragon

It's still not clear that the tax would be constitutional. This might run into the same problem that the AAA did, that the fed. government can't regulate by the back door, through taxing and spending, what it isn't authorized to regulate directly. The government can't say, "You have to buy health insurance or you'll pay a fine." Does it become acceptable merely if it calls the fine a "tax"? I have my doubts about that. Obviously, so do the courts.


----------



## Brutus

M14 Shooter said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a criminal penalty.
> If it were, there'd need to be a trial.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax fraud is a criminal act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes... but the penalty for not carrying insurance is the tax itself.
Click to expand...


yes $695 a year when that is the monthly cost for buying insurance. So, people won't pay until the liberals with guns show up


----------



## geauxtohell

There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.


----------



## Brutus

geauxtohell said:


> There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.



of course if so you would not be so afraid to explain why it is a failure. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate. To the notion that his view didn't prevail in the courts is what one should say 'so what' to. He wrote the document, and later went on to tell people specifically how that section was to be interpreted.



Even if the &#8216;primary author,&#8217; Madison was no dictator, and he authored the Constitution for the convention and American people, not for his faction alone. The Hamiltonian paradigm was just as valid and was just as prevalent among the Framers. 



> That courts decided to rule the other way doesn't make him any less right. What it really means, Dragon, is that people in a governmental position of power decided to grant themselves more power. That's the reality of the future rulings.



Nor does it make the courts &#8216;wrong.&#8217; Since 1819, in _McCulloch v. Maryland_, the courts have recognized Congress possesses unenumerated powers that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution: "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."


----------



## AVG-JOE

Brutus said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if so you would not be so afraid to explain why it is a failure. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Brutus

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Hamiltonian paradigm was just as valid and was just as prevalent among the Framers.



of course once the Constitution was adopted and everyone got to see Hamiltons "paradigm" in action they rejected it.The big government liberal Federalist Party was defeated never to be heard from again.


----------



## Dragon

While the original concept of the thread was indeed a big fail, we have since moved on to discuss the Constitution overall. I suggest simply ignoring the OP, and also everything Brutus has to say. This thread will retain some value and you will only be ignoring the unimportant fluff.


----------



## Brutus

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Congress possesses unenumerated powers ."



of course to the liberal this means any socialist or communist power they want which is clearly unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Since 1819, in _McCulloch v. Maryland_, the courts have recognized Congress possesses unenumerated powers that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution: "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."


The Court, in McCulloch, stated that the Elastic Clause allowes the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the enumerated powers, provided those laws are relevant to the execution of said powers:



> If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality....



Thus, the ruling here isnt exactly as expansive as you'd like us to think, given that the laws in question must still be related to an enumerated power and cannot violate the rights of the states/people.


----------



## Brutus

Bern80 said:


> Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?



this is a good point! Jefferson and Madison and in fact the whole country had no idea whatsoever that the Court would be so important. Judicial Review started with Marbury v Madison, but that case was not used for 100 years thereafter. Renquist said it eventually became the most import case ever, but for the first 100 years no one dreamed how liberally it would later be misintrepreted.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Brutus said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress possesses unenumerated powers ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course to the liberal this means any socialist or communist power they want which is clearly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


yes, after Roe they can find any power they want in the Constitution regardless of whether the Congress has passed a law or not. Liberalism is clearly unconstitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Thus, the ruling here isnt exactly as expansive as you'd like us to think, given that the laws in question must still be related to an enumerated power and cannot violate the rights of the states/people.



Which was never at issue. 

The error concerns the notion that the states have the &#8216;right&#8217; to reject Federal laws they alone perceive to be &#8216;un-Constitutional,&#8217; or to likewise ignore Federal courts. See:_ Cooper v. Aaron_ (1958). 



> yes, after Roe they can find any power they want in the Constitution regardless of whether the Congress has passed a law or not. Liberalism is clearly unconstitutional.



Does that also include the right to self-defense and the individual to own a handgun? 

If so conservatism is clearly just as un-Constitutional.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Does that also include the right to self-defense and the individual to own a handgun?
> 
> If so conservatism is clearly just as un-Constitutional.



How so, the right to bear arms is clearly in the Constitution  and everyone owned arms at the time.

abortion is not there and everyone was not having them at the time.

They are perfect opposites.

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 


Does the liberal have similar quotes on abortion from the founders???


----------

