Democrat politicians set to rob the public to pay reperations to slaves.

[Stuartbirdan2]

Additionally, Onder took umbrage with the language in the special session call excluding “abortifacient drugs or devices” from family planning services. It listed ella, IUDs, and Plan B but stipulated specifically “when used to induce an abortion.” Since state statute already outlaws public funding of abortion, this section is “meaningless,” Onder had said

Senate proposes multiple FRA reauthorization bills; Right to Life opposes separating out pro-life language

Sen. Dan Hegeman unveiled three different bills dealing with FRA reauthorization and pro-life language as the special session kicked off.

themissouritimes.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Do you condemn the proud boys?

500 people have been arrested in Jan. 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland says

The number of arrests linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by supporters of then-President Donald Trump has reached 500, Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

www.cnbc.com

Do you have anything that addresses what I actually said or are you just trolling trying to run up your post count?

.

You fail to condemn fascists. That makes you a fascist

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" says James madison? Link?

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" says the Constitution

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as

spending-for-the-general-welfare

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

Hamilton and Madison were the two principal authors of the Constitution says cornell university

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

So Hamilton and Madison disagreed about the interpretation of what they both wrote. When there is such a disagreement who decides which interpretation is correct? Scotus

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

Capitol Police Officer Was ‘Absolutely Scared' as Rioters Called Him N-Word, Beat Cops With Blue Lives Matter Flags

Harry Dunn, a 13-year veteran of the Capitol department, sat down for an extended interview on Monday in which he detailed the events of Jan. 6.

www.complex.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

New York court suspends Rudy Giuliani's law license

An appeals court has suspended Rudy Giuliani from practicing law in New York because he made false statements while trying to get courts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the presidential race.

apnews.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

Attorneys for Sidney Powell are asking a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against her, claiming that “no reasonable person” thought the pro-Trump lawyer’s statements about the 2020 election results were factual.

Dominion Voting Systems in January sued Powell over her statements alleging the voting company helped rig the election against then-President Donald Trump. In a motion to dismiss filed Monday, Powell’s attorneys wrote that a judge must determine whether her statements could be proved and if “reasonable people” would believe they were factual, given the context and other factors surrounding the comments

Sidney Powell’s legal defense: ‘Reasonable people’ wouldn’t believe her election fraud claims

Lawyers for the Trump ally claim she was just sharing an opinion when she said the election was stolen using machines built to rig races for Hugo Chavez.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

Newsmax Issues Retraction And Apology To Dominion Employee Over Election Stories

Voting machine engineer Eric Coomer was falsely accused of rigging the election against former President Donald Trump by the conservative cable network. He faced death threats and has been in hiding.

www.npr.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

But the fact
that Fox programs pressed guests for evidence and attempted to investigate the allegations as the
story unfolded just reinforces the conclusion that a reasonable viewer would readily have
understood that Fox was not covering those allegations because it was confident they were true; it
was covering them because it was confident they were newsworthy

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Fox-Smartmatic-MTD-Brief.pdf

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

"You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence" link?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

The Constitution protects us from you fascists

I'm a fascist? Um ... talk about projection. I believe in free speech, you don't. I think elections shouldn't be stolen, you do. You think people should be silenced with threats, intimidation and violence. You're a total Nazi, Adolph. You're also a racist

I condemn BLM and antifa

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Voting makes armed robbery OK. Sure, Joe. Tell yourself that.

If that's true, then why the guns? Why does government need guns to confiscate people's wealth if it's just "society?"

I don't know, man. I've never had the government need to point a gun at me to make a collection. I have a relative who works for the IRS. He doesn't have a gun or even need one.

It's tyranny of the majority. "Society" is what we agreed to in the Constitution. Having a military to defend us. Roads. Law enforcement. There was no wealth redistribution in the Constitution when it was written because armed robbery is not society, it is armed robbery. You want other people's shit. So you get out a gun and just take it. Or vote for someone to do it for you. Same thing

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare". That to me would mean that yes, we need some wealth distribution to keep people from starving.

Point is, you guys never openly run on "Let's let the rich have all the money". If you did, you'd lose all 50 states. Instead you come up with bullshit arguments about abortion and gay marriage and Critical Race theory and oh my god, that guy is wearing a dress!

That Biden got one more vote than Hillary would have been a shocker if it wasn't for fraud. No one cared about him, including Democrats.

Actually, Biden was the safe candidate. That's why he won. Four years of crazy, Biden was about as close as we were going to get to bringing Obama back, and that's why he won.

Trump had way more excitement, many people including me who didn't vote for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020.

You just view the world through your own hate filled eyes

He had far more people who hated him than liked him. The man's approval rating never got over 50% not one day in his presidency. He never won the popular vote. He got in on a technicality and got voted out as soon as people could do so.

Right, the candidate no one cared about, even his own party, isn't a question at all. This is how your mind works. What is best for Democrats. You don't go beyond that.

No, not really. You see, after 4 years of crazy, they actually wanted a guy who was calming and maybe a little boring. I honestly hope to be completely bored by politics over the next four years.

In just eight years, all the Democrat States flipped to the party that was the racist party just eight years earlier

Okay, here's where you are actually getting to an argument. So let's look at that. There was not nearly as wide a divide between the two parties inthat period.

In 1956, the GOP ran the guy who LITERALLY SAVED THE WORLD. Someone who was universally loved. So of course, he was was to going to win most of the country. Oh, yeah, and he had also been president for four years already, the economy was going well, he had brought an end to a ridiculous war in Korea, and had initiated a massive public works program to build highways that was very popular.

Eight years later, they ran a guy who was completely batshit crazy. A guy people thought was LITERALLY GOING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD.

Not that he had an argument to make. His opponent was a man who had taken up the mantle of a martyred president, the economy was going wonderfully, and there really wasn't a need to make a change.


That said, we do have a much bigger divide in the country today. Instead of 40+ state sweeps like FDR, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush got, we've been pretty much locked into this Red/Blue nonsense for about 20 years now.

The Democrats have written off the South, the Republicans have written off the Northeast and West Coast. Elections have come down to a handful of states, because we still haven't gotten rid of this stupidity of the electoral college.

So it isn't about fraud, it's about a bad system. Biden overwealming won his biggest prizes - CA, IL, NY. Trump barely squeaked by in TX and FL. But this came down to the five states that flipped and maybe a couple others that were close.

The constitution also says, "Promote the General Welfare".

Feel free to post the Article, Section and Clause where that phrase is found.

.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 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

Wrong answer shitforbrains2. Compare what you posted and what he put in quotes. You commies just don't know the Constitution, do ya?


.

It depends on the definition of promote?

.

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.678 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are “trade” and capable of becoming interstate commerce;679 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.680 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,681 the rationales by which manufacturing,682 mining,683 business transactions,684 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power

Clause III

www.law.cornell.edu

Promote is not used in that clause shitforbrains2. So what's your point commie?

.

Stewie thinks that the Constitution was written to protect government from the people

Do you condemn the oath keeper?

500 people have been arrested in Jan. 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland says

The number of arrests linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by supporters of then-President Donald Trump has reached 500, Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

www.cnbc.com

I don't know who that is. This is another of your boogiemen, isn't it?

Say high to Q for me, Qnut

You are being redirected...

www.adl.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

Except it's nearly impossible to amend the constitution, that's the problem. We haven't legitimately put in a new amendment since the 1970's.

(No, I don't consider the way the meaningless XXVII amendment was passed to be kosher.)

My point is- and pay attention here, because youare a little slow, is that we have to interpret these guidelines in a way that works for us.

The Constitution didn't consider the Internet when writing the first Amendment, we have to make allowances for it. When the Russians and Chinese can flood Facebook with misinformation, we have to do something about that.

Should the government regulate content on the net?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

Except it's nearly impossible to amend the constitution, that's the problem. We haven't legitimately put in a new amendment since the 1970's.

(No, I don't consider the way the meaningless XXVII amendment was passed to be kosher.)

My point is- and pay attention here, because youare a little slow, is that we have to interpret these guidelines in a way that works for us.

The Constitution didn't consider the Internet when writing the first Amendment, we have to make allowances for it. When the Russians and Chinese can flood Facebook with misinformation, we have to do something about that.

Facebook is doing something about it

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

BREAKING — “Trump Organization Could Face Criminal Charges in D.A. Inquiry,” by NYT’s William Rashbaum, Ben Protess and Jonah Bromwich: “The Manhattan district attorney’s office has informed DONALD J. TRUMP’S lawyers that it is considering criminal charges against his family business, the Trump Organization, in connection with fringe benefits the company awarded a top executive …

“If the case moves ahead, the district attorney, CYRUS R. VANCE JR., could announce charges against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, ALLEN H. WEISSELBERG, as soon as next week

 

[OKTexas]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" says James madison? Link?

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" says the Constitution

Federalist 45 Written by James Madison Original Text & Essay Summary

Federalist 45 was written by James Madison January 26, 1788 concerning The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered.

www.teaparty911.com

.

 

[OKTexas]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

So Hamilton and Madison disagreed about the interpretation of what they both wrote. When there is such a disagreement who decides which interpretation is correct? Scotus

The early supreme court agreed with Madison. Hamilton was a statist like you commies.

.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Look them up, or you can just read what the founders had to say about them in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Or maybe we live in a modern society, and we have to do what works for us, and not a bunch of dead slave rapists who shit in chamber pots.

So what you're saying is a written Constitution was an exercise in futility, because you commies are going to do what ever the fuck you want anyways. Are you aware the founders provided an orderly way to change the Constitution to meet the needs of the country?

.

Intent
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace

Since Madison wrote most of the Constitution, I'd say he would have the best understanding of it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" says James madison? Link?

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" says the Constitution

Federalist 45 Written by James Madison Original Text & Essay Summary

Federalist 45 was written by James Madison January 26, 1788 concerning The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered.

www.teaparty911.com

.

Says the tea party