Multiculturalism and Sharia

[Spoonman]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

That's a fact.



In this nation, the fascist democratic party.



Barack Obama.

Has PC only read her own posts? "slights" and "imagined victimization"? Maybe she should walk in the shoes of others before judging their feelings as inconsequential.

I'd go on, but it doesn't pay to feed a narcissist.

Do you deny that Balkanizing the nation has and is a major goal of the democrats? The division is the primary message that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi preach? "They" are your enemy is the message that your shameful party preaches - where they may be "the rich, whites, men, Christians, business owners, English speakers, etc."

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

funny, but that is kind of how the framers established this country from the start

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

That's a fact.



In this nation, the fascist democratic party.



Barack Obama.

Has PC only read her own posts? "slights" and "imagined victimization"? Maybe she should walk in the shoes of others before judging their feelings as inconsequential.

I'd go on, but it doesn't pay to feed a narcissist.

Do you deny that Balkanizing the nation has and is a major goal of the democrats? The division is the primary message that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi preach? "They" are your enemy is the message that your shameful party preaches - where they may be "the rich, whites, men, Christians, business owners, English speakers, etc."

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

"...push more and more power down to the states,..."

One can only wish.




I can tell that you’ve managed to accumulate your education at bargain rates, and by the installment plan, at that. It seems you’ve missed several installments.


Remediation coming right up:

You have never been taught what federalism is.....you've had government schooling, eh?



The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." (Federalist #31.)

And in #32, " I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."

And, with the exception of the enumerated powers, "... the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States."



Only because you Leftists are as dumb as you, is it possible for the current state of this once great nation to be explained.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." (Federalist #31.)

.

The Federalist papers aren't legal documents. Plus, and perhaps funnier, is that you clipped a sentence, out of context, out of Federalist 31, which is in fact an argument against any such complete sovereignty of the States.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

Unless of course you are a victim.

Victims include;

Black people
Hispanics
Homosexuals
Union Members
Teachers
Public Employees
DA PO
Muslims
Illegal Aliens

Bad Guys include;

White men
Whites in general
Men in general
Christians
Business owners
Corporations
English speakers

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

Federalism is a concept you have no grasp at all of, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a fact.



In this nation, the fascist democratic party.



Barack Obama.



Do you deny that Balkanizing the nation has and is a major goal of the democrats? The division is the primary message that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi preach? "They" are your enemy is the message that your shameful party preaches - where they may be "the rich, whites, men, Christians, business owners, English speakers, etc."

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

funny, but that is kind of how the framers established this country from the start

Maybe in the Articles of Confederation. We've moved on from them.

Do you really want a country where every state can make its own gun laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

Unless of course you are a victim.

Victims include;

Black people
Hispanics
Homosexuals
Union Members
Teachers
Public Employees
DA PO
Muslims
Illegal Aliens

Bad Guys include;

White men
Whites in general
Men in general
Christians
Business owners
Corporations
English speakers

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

Federalism is a concept you have no grasp at all of, eh?

Is NATO a country?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Federalist papers aren't legal documents. Plus, and perhaps funnier, is that you clipped a sentence, out of context, out of Federalist 31, which is in fact an argument against any such complete sovereignty of the States.

Then why didn't you provide it and prove your claim?

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither Muslim nor Christian laws will rule here. Only one part of that do they approve of. Guess which part?

Sorry, but my decoder ring is broken at the moment. I'm not sure how your comment here relates in any way to my post. Please explain.

It's not your ring that's broken, it's your head. Use it a little.

So we can assume, since you chose to attack me instead addressing my request, you can't explain how your comment related to my post? Okay. Carry on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then why didn't you provide it and prove your claim?

You want a link to Federalist 31 minutes after you just posted a quote from Federalist 31?

I'll be happy to, right after you acknowledge that the Federalist Papers, because they are not legal documents,

would actually be of no value to your claim, even if you were right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

Unless of course you are a victim.

Victims include;

Black people
Hispanics
Homosexuals
Union Members
Teachers
Public Employees
DA PO
Muslims
Illegal Aliens

Bad Guys include;

White men
Whites in general
Men in general
Christians
Business owners
Corporations
English speakers

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

Federalism is a concept you have no grasp at all of, eh?

Is NATO a country?

Is baby oil made from babies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.

funny, but that is kind of how the framers established this country from the start

Maybe in the Articles of Confederation. We've moved on from them.

Do you really want a country where every state can make its own gun laws?

Sure.

And marriage laws.

And abortion law.



That's because believe in the primacy of the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You want a link to Federalist 31 minutes after you just posted a quote from Federalist 31?

I'll be happy to, right after you acknowledge that the Federalist Papers, because they are not legal documents,

would actually be of no value to your claim, even if you were right.

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then why didn't you provide it and prove your claim?

Let me try this:

The Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was ratified, therefore, a statement such as the one you quoted, referring to the sovereignty of the individual states,

would be referring to them BEFORE the Constitution affected their sovereignty.

In the next paper, Hamilton said this:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete National sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will.

But as the plan of the Convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

In short, constitutionally, the States are sovereign except where the Constitution says they're not.

The Federalist (Dawson)/31 - Wikisource, the free online library

Note: the Papers are numbered differently in different sources.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let me try this:

The Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was ratified, therefore, a statement such as the one you quoted, referring to the sovereignty of the individual states,

would be referring to them BEFORE the Constitution affected their sovereignty.

In the next paper, Hamilton said this:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete National sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will.

But as the plan of the Convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

In short, constitutionally, the States are sovereign except where the Constitution says they're not.

The Federalist (Dawson)/31 - Wikisource, the free online library

Note: the Papers are numbered differently in different sources.

You really are confused by the concept of federalism.

Let's start with the basics; how are state governments formed? Do the rulers in Washington form them? What of city governments?

For instance, Parliament in the UK recently dissolved the city government in Cordroy and established a new one. Could Congress do that here? Could they fire the government in New York City and appoint a new one?

Why, or why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can run, but you can't hide.

That's an odd choice of a white flag.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me try this:

The Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was ratified, therefore, a statement such as the one you quoted, referring to the sovereignty of the individual states,

would be referring to them BEFORE the Constitution affected their sovereignty.

In the next paper, Hamilton said this:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete National sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will.

But as the plan of the Convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

In short, constitutionally, the States are sovereign except where the Constitution says they're not.

The Federalist (Dawson)/31 - Wikisource, the free online library

Note: the Papers are numbered differently in different sources.

You really are confused by the concept of federalism.

Let's start with the basics; how are state governments formed? Do the rulers in Washington form them? What of city governments?

For instance, Parliament in the UK recently dissolved the city government in Cordroy and established a new one. Could Congress do that here? Could they fire the government in New York City and appoint a new one?

Why, or why not?

We are debating PC's unequivocal claim that the states have complete sovereignty. If you want to contribute to that debate, pick a side and defend it:

a. the states have complete sovereignty

b. the states have partial sovereignty, but are limited by the powers held by the Federal Government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

funny, but that is kind of how the framers established this country from the start

Maybe in the Articles of Confederation. We've moved on from them.

Do you really want a country where every state can make its own gun laws?

Sure.

And marriage laws.

And abortion law.



That's because believe in the primacy of the Constitution.

So you want it to be that states, cities, counties, etc., could legislate complete bans of personal ownership of guns, or laws of that nature,

and the citizens would have to recourse to petition the federal courts, including the Supreme Court,

in order to strike down those laws?

lol, and what does have to do with primacy of the constitution whatever that is supposed to mean?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me try this:

The Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was ratified, therefore, a statement such as the one you quoted, referring to the sovereignty of the individual states,

would be referring to them BEFORE the Constitution affected their sovereignty.

In the next paper, Hamilton said this:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete National sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will.

But as the plan of the Convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

In short, constitutionally, the States are sovereign except where the Constitution says they're not.

The Federalist (Dawson)/31 - Wikisource, the free online library

Note: the Papers are numbered differently in different sources.

"In short, constitutionally, the States are sovereign except where the Constitution says they're not."


So you agree......only with respect to Article 1, section 8, does the federal government have primacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe in the Articles of Confederation. We've moved on from them.

Do you really want a country where every state can make its own gun laws?

Sure.

And marriage laws.

And abortion law.



That's because believe in the primacy of the Constitution.

So you want it to be that states, cities, counties, etc., could legislate complete bans of personal ownership of guns, or laws of that nature,

and the citizens would have to recourse to petition the federal courts, including the Supreme Court,

in order to strike down those laws?

lol, and what does have to do with primacy of the constitution whatever that is supposed to mean?

"So you want it to be that states, cities, counties, etc., could legislate complete bans of personal ownership of guns, or laws of that nature,..."

Dunce.

Gun ownership is covered by the Constitution.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.next provide evidence that "the Left" desires power at any cost.

"They have successfully used identity politics in which they encourage each group to focus on slights, imagined victimization, and to remain an entity separate from the culture and the rest of the nation."

Has PC only read her own posts? "slights" and "imagined victimization"? Maybe she should walk in the shoes of others before judging their feelings as inconsequential.

I'd go on, but it doesn't pay to feed a narcissist.

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

She could go on, but it doesn't pay to waste one's time.