Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[M.D. Rawlings]

Absolutely correct... as has been the case in numerous states, such as Florida, wherein the Constitution of our State recognizes the soundly reasoned, natural standards of marriage, as that of one man and one woman.

Which the Federal Court just deemed unconstitutional a few days ago.

Which again, goes to the inevitability of civil war in the US coming soon, demonstrating perfectly why it is such. Subjective judicial decisions over-ruling the legislated will of the people of a State. All because the Federal Government requires that contracts made in one state, be respected in every state, and a Lesbian who split with her room-mate in, I think, Mass, moves here and can't get a hearing for her 'divorce' here, because she isn't married.

It should be noted that on the first day that the first state provided for the pretense of marriage for the sexually abnormal, I said that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would send the Roomies to different states to file for Room-mate divorce, to force everyone else to recognize marriage through the Federal Laws regarding full faith and credit.

It's basically more of the same deceitful tripe that they spewed when in the 80s the normalization of sexual abnormality was being hotly debated and the Homo-Lobby guffawed at every query which questioned that if people accepted open-homosexuals would they later demand to be allowed into marriage... stating that to even ask the question was ABSURD, that "NO HOMOSEXUAL WOULD EVER THINK ABOUT GETTING MARRIED" ... 'HOW COULD THEY? EVERYONE KNOW THAT marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's the anti-theist Left, they're relativists... thus they bear no sense which could possibly provide for them to be worthy of trust on any level, for any reason. In short, they're liars.

But hey, who would expect anything else from people who can't resist the desire to engage in sex with people of their own gender?

Deceit, FRAUD, Ignorance: The triumvirate of evil at the hollow core of socialism.

And of course, later, they guffawed at the absurd notion that equality would mean the kind of public accommodation laws that trample on the prerogatives of private property and free-association.

Of course not! Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha.

And of course the Boy Scouts of America would never have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to defend its charter, the charter of a private organization originally founded by Christians. Pffft. That could never happen. An obvious no-brainer that went all the way to the Supreme Court! Think about that for a moment. Which judge failed to throw these clowns out of his courtroom after a sound tongue lashing in the first hearing of this case?

What case?!

Tell us where you were at on that one, Clayton Jones.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

Homosexuals are not being denied any civil right. Therefore there is no contest. What the sexually abnormal are seeking is the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. What they do not understand is that where homosexuals would be 'married' would be a place where there is no legitimacy in marriage. This is because homosexuality is illegitimate. A certainty, due to the entire foundation of the Advocacy to Normalize Abnormal Sexuality is comprised of the absurdity that behavior which DIAMETRICALLY deviates from the sexuality standard, does not deviate from the standard. From that fraudulence, there is no potential for legitimacy.

None...

Zero...

Zip...

Nada... .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But of course, your ennui is due to your ignorance of history, your failure to perceive the imperatives of liberty versus the causes of tyranny, which are woven into the very fabric of reality, and your naiveté regarding the realities of human nature. Hence, you do not see the danger of undermining the principle of inalienable human rights, the extent to which that has been done in America and, consequently, the signs of the impending disaster.

Your eyes have been glazed over all your life. You've never been awake. Your boredom is due to your short attention span, for the reality, as opposed to the easy bromides of your relativistic dream world, nicely wrapped up and unexamined, is infinitely more complex.

In short, you've never grown up. Lefty is the perpetual adolescent.

Whatever. I suppose I will see you manning the barricades on CNN....

Whatever is right. Right over you head. But "they" will come for you too . . . eventually.

However, back to a more serious note. The civil war thing is over-hyped, gradual decline into chaos is more likely.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have no agenda here, and no offense but in the 24 hours I've been aboard you come across as a whack job.
Maybe turn the rhetoric down from a 10 to 4?

Check. I got the drift from your George Washington crack. . . .

Your assessment is based on 24 hours, based on one topic, from one thread. Not very wise.

Your assumption that my view of inalienable rights relative to homosexuals was wrong, indeed, based on thin air. Not very wise.

The nonsensical suggestion that my reformulation of "First they came . . ." is not correct, when quite obviously the whole point was to make essentially the same point, albeit, with a slightly different emphasis it still a head scratcher. Not very wise, or should that be huh?

Are you even aware of the fact that Niemöller himself penned several versions of it to suit a number of different venues at which he spoke over the years?

Not very wise.

And that was the first time you presumed to tell me how to express myself on this forum. Hell, I have never presumed to tell anyone, not even lefty, how to express himself. Recall. "Shut the hell up" merely alludes to his hypocrisy.

But then, you're wrong, by the way, regarding your understanding of the Framer's original intent relative to the imperatives of natural law and nature's God, insofar as the perfection of that is concerned, in spite of the historical wrinkle of that peculiar institution.

And at this point, no doubt, you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

Where_r_my_Keys is correct about the distinction between the legitimacy of behavioral/ideological discrimination and the illegitimacy of discrimination based on the benign, morphological traits/features of humanity. But to understand why that’s true, one would have to have a background in the historical and philosophical development of the construct of natural law, and be especially familiar with its systematic formulation in Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government. After all, Locke's sociopolitical philosophy coupled with the Gournayian construct of laissez-faire are the essential core of this nation's founding ethos.

I'm not interested in your opinion in this case necessarily as I know better, but suffice it to say, it's perfectly consistent with the Framers' original intent, as anyone may known from Lockean natural law and the Federalist Papers, for the body politic to prohibit discrimination in commercial transactions among parties, with certain kinds of exceptions, of course, based on criteria that is contrary to the normal, universal facts of nature.

A number of the contradictions you alleged in your conversation with Where_r_my_Keys are illusory, though I might have argued the matter differently, because the body of the Constitution proper, before the judicial shenanigans of the Twentieth Century, and the Bill of Rights are not the whole story. Divorce the Constitution from the foundational construct of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, which entails the doctrine of nature's God, the Constitutional can be made to mean virtually whatever anything you want.

Of course, the World Watcher Solution is fine too. The key is equal and universal application.

Point?

You may not have the background in the history of ideas and events that I have, which is significant. You may not fully appreciate certain realities about the problem of evil and human nature as rightly understood by Locke, the Framers and others. You may not fully appreciate the essence of a certain agenda and the urgency of the current political climate. I do.

But in any event, I'll slam these murderous, statist thugs as hard as I please, as it suits me and my agenda, not yours. You don't know about the insanely monstrous ideas that have been sported by a number of the people on this thread, especially by Clayton Jones, over the years.

But by all means feel free to think or say whatever you please. I would never presume to suggest otherwise. But, please, and I'm asking you, not telling you, as you impertinently told me, not once, but twice, don't bore me with anymore of these drive-bys that don't amount to anything. You'll find me to be reasonable and civil in any discussion as along as you keep it real and interesting.

Nonsense. Of course you read it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

what was nicely done? he said nothing. but then again, neither of you have the slightest understanding that it is not the court decisions which violate human rights, but bigots who violate human rights.

How many times can one person be wrong in a single thread. OF COURSE a court ruling can violate human rights.

How did Loving vs Virginia end up before the Supreme Court, for instance, oh that's right because a court in Virginia originally violated civil rights.

That's not entirely correct, in fact it's mostly incorrect.


With regard to Loving, the state of Virginia violated its residents' civil rights as the consequence of an anti-miscegenation measure, a product of the state's legislative branch of government, not the judicial.

The board needs to recognize the delusion that the judiciary represents all of the hope of the Ideological Left. Which of course is second only by their worship of "Democracy", wherein the Legislature is formed from the sacrosanct 'will of the people'. Unless the will of the people rejects the whimsy of pop-culture, at which time the judiciary over-rides the 'will of the people' standing in full force and effect of "The LAW", decreed by their subjective, infallible wisdom. Unless the judiciary finds in favor of the will of the people, at which time the will of 'the peoples' will be demonstrated through peaceful protests, manifested through OCCUPATION of the Public Spaces... which destroy the property of private individuals, spread venereal diseases, dysentery, rape, assault and other peaceful means of expression by the post graduate minds who've mastered the unfathomable depths of women studies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

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

Uh, actually, no, you're wrong there. Every once and awhile, Clayton Jones manages to get it right. It's the spin he routinely puts on things that you have to be wary of.

The Framers couldn't have possibly drafted a constitution that would cover every possible contingency within the scope of a legitimate government. The implied powers of the federal government are those which practically spring from the expressed powers, typically predicated on the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. The principle, when properly applied, requires that the object of the implied power does not contradict any other portion of the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights.

Now, go ahead and pretend you didn't read this one either. LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

You're confusing Christians with the Progressivism of the early 20th Century. That was then as it is today, an exercise in abject, unadulterated evil.

. . . beginning in earnest with that vicious, albeit, Pollyannaish little man Wilson.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...what's your take on judges and courts making these decisions?

What decisions are you talking about?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Homosexuals are not being denied any civil right. Therefore there is no contest. What the sexually abnormal are seeking is the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. What they do not understand is that where homosexuals would be 'married' would be a place where there is no legitimacy in marriage. This is because homosexuality is illegitimate. A certainty, due to the entire foundation of the Advocacy to Normalize Abnormal Sexuality is comprised of the absurdity that behavior which DIAMETRICALLY deviates from the sexuality standard, does not deviate from the standard. From that fraudulence, there is no potential for legitimacy.

None...

Zero...

Zip...

Nada... .

Ah...huh? Send me a couple of grams of what you are smoking, bro. I think that we can make a deal.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You didn't include queers. Bigot.

Yeah...that would be one of those words best left out of polite conversation...please...stop using it in my threads...thanks...

How about Pussy?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

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

Uh, actually, no, you're wrong there. Every once and awhile, Clayton Jones manages to get it right. It's the spin he routinely puts on things that you have to be wary of.

The Framers couldn't have possibly drafted a constitution that would cover every possible contingency within the scope of a legitimate government. The implied powers of the federal government are those which practically spring from the expressed powers, typically predicated on the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. The principle, when properly applied, requires that the object of the implied power does not contradict any other portion of the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights.

Now, go ahead and pretend you didn't read this one either. LOL!

Very scary that a document reads " ALL powers not given SPECIFICALLY given to the USG are reserved for the states or the people" and multiple people claim that that does not mean the USG can't take powers they want.

Very scary indeed

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals are not being denied any civil right. Therefore there is no contest. What the sexually abnormal are seeking is the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. What they do not understand is that where homosexuals would be 'married' would be a place where there is no legitimacy in marriage. This is because homosexuality is illegitimate. A certainty, due to the entire foundation of the Advocacy to Normalize Abnormal Sexuality is comprised of the absurdity that behavior which DIAMETRICALLY deviates from the sexuality standard, does not deviate from the standard. From that fraudulence, there is no potential for legitimacy.

None...

Zero...

Zip...

Nada... .

Ah...huh? Send me a couple of grams of what you are smoking, bro. I think that we can make a deal.

Homosexuals are not being denied any civil right. Therefore there is no contest. What the sexually abnormal are seeking is the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. What they do not understand is that where homosexuals would be 'married' would be a place where there is no legitimacy in marriage. This is because homosexuality is illegitimate. A certainty, due to the entire foundation of the Advocacy to Normalize Abnormal Sexuality is comprised of the absurdity that behavior which DIAMETRICALLY deviates from the sexuality standard, does not deviate from the standard. From that fraudulence, there is no potential for legitimacy.

None...

Zero...

Zip...

Nada... .

Ah...huh? Send me a couple of grams of what you are smoking, bro. I think that we can make a deal.

So, what I see you doing there is DESPERATELY wanting to contest the standing points, but you do not feel sufficiently capable of doing so, given that you, nor anyone else, can alter the facts, upon which the numerous uncontested points, stand.

LOL! COOL!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I have no agenda here, and no offense but in the 24 hours I've been aboard you come across as a whack job.
Maybe turn the rhetoric down from a 10 to 4?

Check. I got the drift from your George Washington crack. . . .

Your assessment is based on 24 hours, based on one topic, from one thread. Not very wise.

Your assumption that my view of inalienable rights relative to homosexuals was wrong, indeed, based on thin air. Not very wise.

The nonsensical suggestion that my reformulation of "First they came . . ." is not correct, when quite obviously the whole point was to make essentially the same point, albeit, with a slightly different emphasis it still a head scratcher. Not very wise, or should that be huh?

Are you even aware of the fact that Niemöller himself penned several versions of it to suit a number of different venues at which he spoke over the years?

Not very wise.

And that was the first time you presumed to tell me how to express myself on this forum. Hell, I have never presumed to tell anyone, not even lefty, how to express himself. Recall. "Shut the hell up" merely alludes to his hypocrisy.

But then, you're wrong, by the way, regarding your understanding of the Framer's original intent relative to the imperatives of natural law and nature's God, insofar as the perfection of that is concerned, in spite of the historical wrinkle of that peculiar institution.

And at this point, no doubt, you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.

Where_r_my_Keys is correct about the distinction between the legitimacy of behavioral/ideological discrimination and the illegitimacy of discrimination based on the benign, morphological traits/features of humanity. But to understand why that’s true, one would have to have a background in the historical and philosophical development of the construct of natural law, and be especially familiar with its systematic formulation in Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government. After all, Locke's sociopolitical philosophy coupled with the Gournayian construct of laissez-faire are the essential core of this nation's founding ethos.

I'm not interested in your opinion in this case necessarily as I know better, but suffice it to say, it's perfectly consistent with the Framers' original intent, as anyone may known from Lockean natural law and the Federalist Papers, for the body politic to prohibit discrimination in commercial transactions among parties, with certain kinds of exceptions, of course, based on criteria that is contrary to the normal, universal facts of nature.

A number of the contradictions you alleged in your conversation with Where_r_my_Keys are illusory, though I might have argued the matter differently, because the body of the Constitution proper, before the judicial shenanigans of the Twentieth Century, and the Bill of Rights are not the whole story. Divorce the Constitution from the foundational construct of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, which entails the doctrine of nature's God, the Constitutional can be made to mean virtually whatever anything you want.

Of course, the World Watcher Solution is fine too. The key is equal and universal application.

Point?

You may not have the background in the history of ideas and events that I have, which is significant. You may not fully appreciate certain realities about the problem of evil and human nature as rightly understood by Locke, the Framers and others. You may not fully appreciate the essence of a certain agenda and the urgency of the current political climate. I do.

But in any event, I'll slam these murderous, statist thugs as hard as I please, as it suits me and my agenda, not yours. You don't know about the insanely monstrous ideas that have been sported by a number of the people on this thread, especially by Clayton Jones, over the years.

But by all means feel free to think or say whatever you please. I would never presume to suggest otherwise. But, please, and I'm asking you, not telling you, as you impertinently told me, not once, but twice, don't bore me with anymore of these drive-bys that don't amount to anything. You'll find me to be reasonable and civil in any discussion as along as you keep it real and interesting.

Nonsense. Of course you read it.

No, I began to read it, but what a boring wall of text, noway I'm reading all that

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I talk to Lefty the way I do because the smarter ones, for example, known they're trampling on INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, and they are utterly indifferent to the monetary costs, the stress and the disruption their actions wrought on the lives of families, decent people trying to live their lives in peace. Businesses have been destroyed. Livelihoods ruined. Dreams, years of work and sacrifice, wiped out. Right now in San Francisco, churches are being invaded and vandalized by you know who. The victims. Christians have been assaulted on the public streets and sidewalks by the same. With impunity. The MSM ignores these stories.

Yet again, at least the third time: I actually AGREE with you on this!

When we conservatives/libertarians read stories about homosexuals being brutalized by thugs, friggin' animals, do we react with indifference? Of course not! We are outraged by such assaults on civilization, heart broken for the savagery endured by a human being. Any decent and sane human being would be.

Of course.

What? You think I'm one of "them" who wouldn't be?

Actually, I suspect you would cheer.

Bingo! You know that sound you hear when you suddenly stop the LP from spinning on the turn table while the needle's still down? That's the sound you just made. Crazy mixed with *startle*

The rest of your post is more of the same creepy "Report-Me-To-The-F.B.I.-and-Scour-My-Hard-Drive-for-Porn."

Dude. Seriously. Good bye. Have a nice life.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

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 understand the point you're making, but I disagree with the implication on which your premise rests.

Powers... are not the same as 'things one can do'. The Constitution gives the power to make law to the Legislature. Which must be signed and executed or rejected, by the President.

The risk the framers took, was that the Legislature and the President would be elected by a virtuous people.

The US Citizenry is no longer virtuous and the people they are electing are not virtuous, thus they ARE stepping beyond the specific lines drawn by the Constitution. But this is the result of the legislature passing ITS authority off to bureaucrats and not aggressively defending its power, by sustaining its responsibility to its just powers to make law, as determined by the people who elected them.

Within this issue, you're correct, the Congress does NOT have the authority to transfer its powers to other bodies of the US Government. Where you're NOT correct, is in the assumption that the congress does not hae the power to preserve the rights of US Citizens... .

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

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 understand the point you're making, but I disagree with the implication on which your premise rests.

Powers... are not the same as 'things one can do'. The Constitution gives the power to make law to the Legislature. Which must be signed and executed by the President.

The risk the framers took, was that the Legislature and the President would be elected by a virtuous people.

The US Citizenry is no longer virtuous and the people they are electing are not virtuous, thus they ARE stepping beyond the specific lines drawn by the Constitution. But this is the result of the legislature passing ITS authority off to bureaucrats and not aggressively defending its power, by sustaining its responsibility to its just powers to make law, as determined by the people who elected them.

Within this issue, you're correct, the Congress does NOT have the authority to transfer its powers to other bodies of the US Government. Where you're NOT correct, is in the assumption that the congress does not hae the power to preserve the rights of US Citizens... .

I think you misunderstood. I'm in agreement that Congress is transferring its powers to third parties , but I have not said that Congress has the power to preserve the rights of citizens. I don't know where that cam from.

What I have said is that if a power is not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government (any branch) in the COTUS then the default is that they do not have that power. This is obviously true as everytime they make a power grab unless SCOTUS can somehow stretch the COTUS almost beyond recognition to make it fit, they don't have that power.

Take something like the civil rights Act, as an example. Now states I believe are free to outlaw discrimination, but it's a plain fact that Congress is NOT given the power to regulate such things. Where does it say that Congress has the power to pass a law that some little mom and pop shop in podunk, MS can't refuse to marry gays?

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

Or if you'd rather talk about the President, that's fine to, Obama is taking powers left and right, because we've let him, as we let the guy before him, etc etc. And it all started with something that everyone looked around and said "yeah well you know, they really don't have the authority to do that, but is it REALLY that big a deal?"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[No, I began to read it, but what a boring wall of text, noway I'm reading all that

The bottom half pertains to your exchange with Where_r_my_keys. Information that you don't appear to be familiar with regarding constitutional law, no more than you were aware of the principle of implied powers, apparently: Constitutional History 101. Now what about being petty at every turn?

Implied powers don't work the way you apparently imagine. In practice, they’re initiatives passed by the legislative and executive branches. Like any other piece of legislation, they're subject to judicial review. In history, more often than not, they have served to uphold the spirit of the expressed powers and that of the Bill of Rights in the face of unforeseeable contingencies that would have otherwise undermined the latter. They have never been a serious problem for the Republic.

The real problems are the ones discussed on this thread: the usual suspects.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[No, I began to read it, but what a boring wall of text, noway I'm reading all that

The bottom half pertains to your exchange with Where_r_my_keys. Information that you don't appear to be familiar with regarding constitutional law, no more than you were aware of the principle of implied powers, apparently: Constitutional History 101. Now what about being petty at every turn?

Implied powers don't work the way you apparently imagine. In practice, they’re initiatives passed by the legislative and executive branches. Like any other piece of legislation, they're subject to judicial review. In history, more often than not, they have served to uphold the spirit of the expressed powers and that of the Bill of Rights in the face of unforeseeable contingencies that would have otherwise undermined the latter. They have never been a serious problem for the Republic.

The real problems are the ones discussed on this thread: the usual suspects.

Translation:

"I don't care what the COTUS actually says when it suits me to ignore it"

the federal government expressly is NOT supposed to have implied powers under the COTUS. I mean my God man the document contains those exact words.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[No, I began to read it, but what a boring wall of text, noway I'm reading all that

The bottom half pertains to your exchange with Where_r_my_keys. Information that you don't appear to be familiar with regarding constitutional law, no more than you were aware of the principle of implied powers, apparently: Constitutional History 101. Now what about being petty at every turn?

Implied powers don't work the way you apparently imagine. In practice, they’re initiatives passed by the legislative and executive branches. Like any other piece of legislation, they're subject to judicial review. In history, more often than not, they have served to uphold the spirit of the expressed powers and that of the Bill of Rights in the face of unforeseeable contingencies that would have otherwise undermined the latter. They have never been a serious problem for the Republic.

The real problems are the ones discussed on this thread: the usual suspects.

Translation:

"I don't care what the COTUS actually says when it suits me to ignore it"

the federal government expressly is NOT supposed to have implied powers under the COTUS. I mean my God man the document contains those exact words.

Uh . . . no. *sigh* And this is a good reason why you should get your first impression of me based on exchanges where I was reacting to things that are especially monstrous out of your head. The bottom half of the post you claim not to have fully read is pertinent!

If one asks, "By what means may we recognize that a legislative (Congressional-Executive) action or, increasingly troubling, a unilateral executive action is unconstitutional?"

I imagine you would answer with "ALL powers not specifically given to the USG are reserved for the states or the people."

And right you would be . . . sort of. But in addition to the enumerated powers of the three branches of government, what other powers are specifically given to the USG? Answer: The powers of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. Only the federal government can attend to unforeseeable contingencies impacting the entire nation that if left unattended could have catastrophic effects on the security and the liberty of the people. And we have had such contingencies arise. That's the purpose of the implied powers, and in theory they may not contradict the spirit of either the rest of the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights, and they are subject to judicial review.

So that doesn't really answer the question in any tangible or practical sense. There is, however, a principle that does answer that question in the most tangible way possible. It's the underlying principle of the Republic's founding intimately related to the Bill of Rights. Divorce the Constitution from that principle and all is lost or, in recent historical experience, systematically stripped away thereafter. We are close to a hundred years since the first dramatic assault was asserted against that principle.

What is that principle?

That's what we've got to get a hold of and back into the American Consciousness. Lefty knows what it is, and he's been doing everything he can to erase it from the same. Once it's gone or once there's but a comparatively small portion of the population who know what it is and live it . . . well, that's it. Ugly time. Real ugly time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[No, I began to read it, but what a boring wall of text, noway I'm reading all that

The bottom half pertains to your exchange with Where_r_my_keys. Information that you don't appear to be familiar with regarding constitutional law, no more than you were aware of the principle of implied powers, apparently: Constitutional History 101. Now what about being petty at every turn?

Implied powers don't work the way you apparently imagine. In practice, they’re initiatives passed by the legislative and executive branches. Like any other piece of legislation, they're subject to judicial review. In history, more often than not, they have served to uphold the spirit of the expressed powers and that of the Bill of Rights in the face of unforeseeable contingencies that would have otherwise undermined the latter. They have never been a serious problem for the Republic.

The real problems are the ones discussed on this thread: the usual suspects.

Translation:

"I don't care what the COTUS actually says when it suits me to ignore it"

the federal government expressly is NOT supposed to have implied powers under the COTUS. I mean my God man the document contains those exact words.

Translation:


“I don't care what Constitutional case law actually says when it suits me to ignore it.”


The Constitution in fact affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.


“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument,' where there's no validity to Constitutional literalism – the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-Americans judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II. The doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts was well-established in Colonial America during the century before the advent of the Foundation Era, where Americans fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review state laws and acts of Congress and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, as in fact the courts are authorized to do by Articles III and VI; efforts by those hostile to Constitutional case law because that jurisprudence conflicts with their political dogma are devoid of merit and completely unsupported by the facts and history of the Constitution and Anglo-American judicial practice.