House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

[Correll]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

 

[koshergrl]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

They deny history and seek to squelch all understanding/education of history. this is how communism works.

 

[bendog]

Yes, this assclown actually said this.

A House Democrat said Wednesday that it "really bothers me" when people claim the U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the federal government's power.

At a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing focusing on whether Congress should consider impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the founding document of the U.S. was designed for the "opposite" purpose.

House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

I'm not surprised he believes this. He's an extremist far left nut job. I'm surprised he actually stated it publicly.

Actually, he is correct in saying

"The Constitution was enacted to strengthen government power to enable central government to lay taxes and to function effectively. We put limits on that through the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution was enacted for the opposite purpose," said Nadler.

BUT the constitution still maintains very strong limitations and separations of powers in the government.

The overall theme of Government in American was still to limit the power of government to prevent tyranny as was the norm in the rest of the world at that time.

the constitution sets forth the powers of each branch of govt. What this guy said isn't even MARGINALLY an incorrect statement. The constitution does not provide ANY right. That's why when people say "the gummit has a right" they expose that they have no clue as to our form of govt.

ALL individual rights are found in the BoR and later amendments.

 

[bendog]

Yes, this assclown actually said this.

A House Democrat said Wednesday that it "really bothers me" when people claim the U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the federal government's power.

At a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing focusing on whether Congress should consider impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the founding document of the U.S. was designed for the "opposite" purpose.

House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

I'm not surprised he believes this. He's an extremist far left nut job. I'm surprised he actually stated it publicly.

Actually, he is correct in saying

"The Constitution was enacted to strengthen government power to enable central government to lay taxes and to function effectively. We put limits on that through the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution was enacted for the opposite purpose," said Nadler.

The Constitution's primary purpose is to restrict the authority of the federal government and to protect the people from it.

Bullshit.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution's primary purpose is to restrict the authority of the federal government and to protect the people from it.

No, that was the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's purpose was to give the central government more power than the Articles of Confederation did.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, this assclown actually said this.

A House Democrat said Wednesday that it "really bothers me" when people claim the U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the federal government's power.

At a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing focusing on whether Congress should consider impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the founding document of the U.S. was designed for the "opposite" purpose.

House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

I'm not surprised he believes this. He's an extremist far left nut job. I'm surprised he actually stated it publicly.

Actually, he is correct in saying

"The Constitution was enacted to strengthen government power to enable central government to lay taxes and to function effectively. We put limits on that through the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution was enacted for the opposite purpose," said Nadler.

The Constitution's primary purpose is to restrict the authority of the federal government and to protect the people from it.

Bullshit.

Lol.

"What the Constitution Does
The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers."

You do understand what "limited" and "enumerated" means, right?

"The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

"The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

"So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly. "

Purpose of the Constitution

 

[regent]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

Are you suggesting that it is not logical to rely on experts just in the field of history, or does that reasoning apply to all areas. So why is it a fallacy to ask the top 238 American historians an historical question? If so, then it is a fallacy to ask an MD a medical question or a chemist a chemical question?

 

[koshergrl]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

Are you suggesting that it is not logical to rely on experts just in the field of history, or does that reasoning apply to all areas. So why is it a fallacy to ask the top 238 American historians an historical question? If so, then it is a fallacy to ask an MD a medical question or a chemist a chemical question?

The "top" 238 historians?

Lolol.

There are not that many "top" historians in America. They're just calling progressives in Academia who are teaching "top historians" in order to lend credence to nonsense.

 

[konradv]

"The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

Maybe that's what they thought, but in reality what force do rights have, if there isn't a government to back them up?

 

[bendog]

The constitution says what the gummit can do ... and in theory it cannot do anything not granted by the const. However, we all should know that around 1934-36, our nation came to view a more expansive govt than what was previously envisioned. Lincoln and to a lesser extent Jackson also viewed an expansive power. But at any rate, the Constitution does NOT give any individual a right to prevent the gummit from taking any action.

This was why the BoR came about.

 

[konradv]

Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

I believe that's not what he was saying. He was commenting on the fact that a strong Constitution was needed to fix the problems with the weak Articles of Confederation.

 

[bendog]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

What limitation is at issue? You can be taxed if you don't buy insurance, and you can be denied the ability to legally own an AR-15. And the fed govt can tell the states to recognize gay marriage.

 

[regent]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

Are you suggesting that it is not logical to rely on experts just in the field of history, or does that reasoning apply to all areas. So why is it a fallacy to ask the top 238 American historians an historical question? If so, then it is a fallacy to ask an MD a medical question or a chemist a chemical question?

The "top" 238 historians?

Lolol.

There are not that many "top" historians in America. They're just calling progressives in Academia who are teaching "top historians" in order to lend credence to nonsense.

So are now an authority on how many top historians are in America, and your authority for this call?

 

[bendog]

Yes, this assclown actually said this.

A House Democrat said Wednesday that it "really bothers me" when people claim the U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the federal government's power.

At a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing focusing on whether Congress should consider impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the founding document of the U.S. was designed for the "opposite" purpose.

House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

I'm not surprised he believes this. He's an extremist far left nut job. I'm surprised he actually stated it publicly.

Damn it. Technically speaking, COMPARED TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, he is correct.

Under the articles the central government was unable to function effectively.

The constitution was written to increase the power of the federal government relative to that.


BUT, the concept of limitations and separations of powers, was NOT ABANDONED, just moderated.

Could America have survived if the framers had not given the central government more power than the Articles?

I haven't closely examined the issues of the time to judge the conclusions of those of the time who that wrote the new Constitution.

Indeed, I only vaguely recall what the issues were at this time.

Perhaps you should read the congressman's comment in the context of what he was saying, rather than injecting your own agenda (which may be a correct view of constitutional history, btw, but not really relevant to what the congressman was getting at)

 

[koshergrl]

The constitution says what the gummit can do ... and in theory it cannot do anything not granted by the const. However, we all should know that around 1934-36, our nation came to view a more expansive govt than what was previously envisioned. Lincoln and to a lesser extent Jackson also viewed an expansive power. But at any rate, the Constitution does NOT give any individual a right to prevent the gummit from taking any action.

This was why the BoR came about.

Nonsense.

The constitution says what the gummit can do ... and in theory it cannot do anything not granted by the const. However, we all should know that around 1934-36, our nation came to view a more expansive govt than what was previously envisioned. Lincoln and to a lesser extent Jackson also viewed an expansive power. But at any rate, the Constitution does NOT give any individual a right to prevent the gummit from taking any action.

This was why the BoR came about.

Did you miss the assertion that we have rights that are NOT listed/granted in the Constitution? That our individual rights are not GRANTED by our government?

The Constitution doesn't grant us ANY rights. We are born with rights..including ones not listed in the Constitution. That doesn't mean we don't have those rights.

And we do have the right to prevent the government from taking action. The ultimate power of our government lies in the PEOPLE. Not the government. The government serves us. Not the other way around.

 

[koshergrl]

It always amazes me to hear leftists trying to talk law and constitution. They have absolutely no sense of history.

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

Are you suggesting that it is not logical to rely on experts just in the field of history, or does that reasoning apply to all areas. So why is it a fallacy to ask the top 238 American historians an historical question? If so, then it is a fallacy to ask an MD a medical question or a chemist a chemical question?

The "top" 238 historians?

Lolol.

There are not that many "top" historians in America. They're just calling progressives in Academia who are teaching "top historians" in order to lend credence to nonsense.

So are now an authority on how many top historians are in America, and your authority for this call?

I know we don't have hundreds of "top historians" lol. They are just a mob of dumbass progressives pretending to be something they aren't, in order to engage in propaganda.

It's what they do.

 

[Ravi]

Well, duh, the constitution establishes a federal government and enumerates its powers.

 

[koshergrl]

Well, duh, the constitution establishes a federal government and enumerates its powers.

I'd offer you a cookie but it might interfere with your consumption of the bucket of mac n cheese you're currently stuffing into all your orifices.

 

[Ravi]

Well, duh, the constitution establishes a federal government and enumerates its powers.

I'd offer you a cookie but it might interfere with your consumption of the bucket of mac n cheese you're currently stuffing into all your orifices.

Are you saying it doesn't do that?

 

[regent]

And yet America's top historians are accused of being leftists.

Logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Do you believe that the dem in the OP is correct to believe that the Constitution does NOT have limitations and separations of power for the government in it?

Are you suggesting that it is not logical to rely on experts just in the field of history, or does that reasoning apply to all areas. So why is it a fallacy to ask the top 238 American historians an historical question? If so, then it is a fallacy to ask an MD a medical question or a chemist a chemical question?

The "top" 238 historians?

Lolol.

There are not that many "top" historians in America. They're just calling progressives in Academia who are teaching "top historians" in order to lend credence to nonsense.

So are now an authority on how many top historians are in America, and your authority for this call?

I know we don't have hundreds of "top historians" lol. They are just a mob of dumbass progressives pretending to be something they aren't, in order to engage in propaganda.

It's what they do.

So how many top historians does America have, and what is the source of your authority on the number of America's top historians?