House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

[koshergrl]

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?

Less than 238.

 

[BluesLegend]

seriously??

 

[koshergrl]

According to Ranker, and other progressives, Harry Houdini is the #1 Historian the US has ever produced.

Famous Historians from the United States

 

[HenryBHough]

When government has ALL rights and citizens have none what's the purpose of even having a "Bill of Rights"? Think of November as your chance to vote in favor of doing away with that obsolete addendum to The (former) Constritution!

The Democrat candidate (whoever that might be) is sure to agree.

Or.....not be The Democrat candidate.

 

[basquebromance]

this. means. war.

 

[regent]

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?

Less than 238.

So you are like an authority on America's top historians, and what gives you this expertise?

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Less than 238.

So you are like an authority on America's top historians, and what gives you this expertise?

I claim the same authority that you claim, thank you.

Harry Houdini is the #1 historian the us has ever known!!! 238 top magicians told me so!

 

[Contumacious]

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.

The fuckers confused the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.

For shame.


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Yes, this actually fails as a hasty generalization fallacy if anyone believes Nadler is ‘representative’ of all democrats.

 

[Correll]

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.

The separation of powers is a part of the limitation of government.

By specifically enumerating the powers of each branch, that limits the government from doing what is NOT given to them.

Thought that system has completely collapsed due to corrupt judges.

 

[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?

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?

It is no logical to assume that experts in a field are always correct or never biased.

Their claims and opinions are as open to examination and challenge like anyone else's.

I hope that you question your MD, about your healthcare.

I know I do.

 

[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.

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.

The separation of powers is a part of the limitation of government.

By specifically enumerating the powers of each branch, that limits the government from doing what is NOT given to them.

Thought that system has completely collapsed due to corrupt judges.

And corrupt legislators.
And corrupt presidents.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

he's as low information as his voters

 

[Correll]

"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?

You may consider it a "legal fiction" if you do not believe in God. But it is a "legal fiction" that is the basis of all Human Rights and Civil Rights in the world.


Do you really want to undermine that, and if so, what possible good could come of that?

 

[Timmy]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

 

[Correll]

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.

Yes, this actually fails as a hasty generalization fallacy if anyone believes Nadler is ‘representative’ of all democrats.

The evolution of "liberals" into today's, big government statists, demonstrates that he is certainly representative of the vast majority of democrats and liberals.


And there is nothing "hasty" about the decades long demonstration of that fact provided by you lefties.

 

[Correll]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

Or, corrupt politicians, and judges, and legislatures, could have exceeded their authority and enumerated powers, in their greedy quest for more power.


In VIOLATION of the Constitution.

 

[Correll]

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.

He made no such limiting comments.

ESPECIALLY in the context of the article.


"Koskinen is being accused of making misleading statements and failing to produce essential evidence for the committee's investigation into the targeting of politically conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service."


Surely you agree that using the IRS to target political enemies is an abuse of power NOT sanctioned by the Constitution.

 

[Timmy]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

Or, corrupt politicians, and judges, and legislatures, could have exceeded their authority and enumerated powers, in their greedy quest for more power.


In VIOLATION of the Constitution.

Where's an example of this VIOLATION you speak of?

 

[koshergrl]

Has the fed gov power increased since the start of the constituon ? Yes!

So he's right. Cause the only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it .

Or, corrupt politicians, and judges, and legislatures, could have exceeded their authority and enumerated powers, in their greedy quest for more power.


In VIOLATION of the Constitution.

Timmy's comment is patently stupid. "The only way that could've happened is if the con allowed for it" is a ridiculous statement. That's like saying the Union gained control of the south because the South allowed for it.

The stupidity of the left depresses me.