House Dem: Constitution was designed to increase government power

[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.

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.

Have you ever looked at the constitution ?? Maybe read more than the 2nd amendment ??

Your stupid argument is that any law passed , is unconstitutional !

 

[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.

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

 

[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?

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.

According to the dem in question, ALL LIMITATIONS are at issue. He claimed the purpose of the Constitution was the OPPOSITE OF that.

 

[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.

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)

In what way did I fail to take into account the context?

 

[Correll]

Yes, this assclown actually said this.

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

He's a typical government-educated stooge.

DO NOT QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT!

Everything the Government does is LEGAL because it is done by the GOVERNMENT! Do not question officials! All officials represent the perfect GOVERNMENT and as such, all their utterances are LAW, PERFECT and SACROSANCT. And the Supreme Court...unelected, appointed denizens for life...are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. What they say GOES and you MUST NOT QUESTION or DISAGREE with them because the US is now an OLIGARCHY! the Constitution has no meaning to ordinary people, you must not attempt to read or interpret yourself, you must submit to the authority of the SCOTUS, and in their absence, any badged official, and accept whatever they tell you as the LAW.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 right, historically. The Articles of Confederation were failing for lack of power at the federal level. The Constitution was intended to remedy that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

You're free to disagree with a court decision on the merits, you're dead wrong to assert that the Supreme Court is not the proper body to rule on constitutionality.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The current constitution was all about giving the federal power the power it needed to do the will of the people. The democrats are right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

He's a typical government-educated stooge.

DO NOT QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT!

Everything the Government does is LEGAL because it is done by the GOVERNMENT! Do not question officials! All officials represent the perfect GOVERNMENT and as such, all their utterances are LAW, PERFECT and SACROSANCT. And the Supreme Court...unelected, appointed denizens for life...are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. What they say GOES and you MUST NOT QUESTION or DISAGREE with them because the US is now an OLIGARCHY! the Constitution has no meaning to ordinary people, you must not attempt to read or interpret yourself, you must submit to the authority of the SCOTUS, and in their absence, any badged official, and accept whatever they tell you as the LAW.

So who would you have determine the constitutionality of laws, since you think you have a better idea?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

He's a typical government-educated stooge.

DO NOT QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT!

Everything the Government does is LEGAL because it is done by the GOVERNMENT! Do not question officials! All officials represent the perfect GOVERNMENT and as such, all their utterances are LAW, PERFECT and SACROSANCT. And the Supreme Court...unelected, appointed denizens for life...are the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. What they say GOES and you MUST NOT QUESTION or DISAGREE with them because the US is now an OLIGARCHY! the Constitution has no meaning to ordinary people, you must not attempt to read or interpret yourself, you must submit to the authority of the SCOTUS, and in their absence, any badged official, and accept whatever they tell you as the LAW.

So who would you have determine the constitutionality of laws, since you think you have a better idea?

Her idea of the constitution is no more then a defense pact and currency agreement between the states. Loserterianism would destroy this country and be very undemocratic.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Gee... Can someone PLEASE read the 9th and 10th amendments to this stupid asshole? He obviously is incapable of comprehending the English written word.

Here, let me help:

The 9th & 10th Amendments. “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.” The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ...

 

[SwimExpert]

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's halfway correct. The constitution was adopted to increase the power of the federal government, compared to the Articles of Confederation. Where he is wrong is to assume that that means that the framers weren't still implementing limitations on the government.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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?

The federal government was charged with TWO responsibilities and ONLY two. (1) protect the borders of the United States and its people and (2) collect tariffs. Other duties included printing money and a postal system.
The REST of the powers were to be given to the STATEs.

Remember, Congress was only to be in session for a brief time each year and Congressmen and Senators were forbidden from living in DC.

They were to travel from their home states, do the business of the government and return to their home states. PERIOD.

So much for that shit.....

 

[konradv]

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?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

 

[Correll]

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.

You’re as ignorant as you are stupid.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Government has the authority to enact laws and measures consistent with Constitutional case law – and when government overreaches, and enacts measures repugnant to the Constitution, the people have the right to seek relief in court.

Laws and measures enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)); and measures which are enacted not subject to judicial review, or which have passed Constitutional muster, are considered necessary, proper, and consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And whining about ‘corrupt judges’ just because you don’t like how they rule is also ignorant and stupid.

Your pretense that it is improper of me to disagree with various Supreme Court rulings and/or unreviewed measures AND/OR to believe that the various officials in question were in violation of their sworn duties, is ignorant and stupid.

Say, just as a COMPLETELY UNRELATED aside, how did you feel about that 7-2 Dred Scott ruling?

You're free to disagree with a court decision on the merits, you're dead wrong to assert that the Supreme Court is not the proper body to rule on constitutionality.

Well, I would be dead wrong if that was what I asserted.

So, thank you for supporting me on this issue, despite our extreme disagreements generally.

 

[Correll]

The current constitution was all about giving the federal power the power it needed to do the will of the people. The democrats are right.

The Will of the People is sometimes tyranny and/or oppression.

The democrats are wrong. Very, very wrong.

 

[Correll]

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?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

I asked what possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent.

Nothing in your response addressed that.

You addressed the existence of God, which I framed the question carefully to not be relevant to avoid giving an atheist a Red Flag and thus derailing the thread.

And then restated your original position.


Nothing happened with the round of conversation except the passage of time and the waste of a small amount of electricity.


I repeat my question.


What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

It really has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Rights are what we as a society agree upon. Without some sort of organization to back them up, we live in a state of nature in which the only rights are the ones you can personally defend.

I asked what possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent.

Nothing in your response addressed that.

You addressed the existence of God, which I framed the question carefully to not be relevant to avoid giving an atheist a Red Flag and thus derailing the thread.

And then restated your original position.


Nothing happened with the round of conversation except the passage of time and the waste of a small amount of electricity.


I repeat my question.


What possible good could come of undermining the possibly "legal fiction" that Human Rights are Inherent?

1. Nobody agrees on what rights are natural rights

2. It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

 

[SwimExpert]

It requires a powerful government to protect ANY rights.

But even a weak government can infringe upon them.