Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Liberty]

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.


The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

you throw out of context quotes everywhere, and then attempt to lecture us? Get a fucking clue man.

You interpret the Constitution to suit your personal political views.

That is because my political views ARE the constitution. Any other brain busters?

 

[DiamondDave]

American love Socialism, that's why the elected Congressmen who would pass a federal law in 1887 to regulate railroads.

So Americans must love W Bush.. and the Iraq conflict... that's why they elected him to fight 2 wars... tell us how you love W Bush

Your lack of logic and refusal to look at reality is amazing

Americans love Socialism, dude. That's why, in 1888, the people pressured Congress into enacting the federal law providing veterans and the children of veterans with generous pensions.

Employment benefit is not socialism.. and that assertion that it is has been debunked on this site numerous times before your troll ass came on board

 

[SuMar]

Thats why we have a shitload of college grads who can't get jobs despite their degrees so they're even applying for low end jobs just to pay the bills, your ideal, individualistic theory doesn't match the facts. I'm pretty sure those college grads who can't get a fucking job worked just as hard as one hard worker to secure employment and you mean to tell me that they're lazy and or somehow less industrious than those who have a job because they're jobless? Come back to fucking earth.

If there all these so called "unemployed college grads" struggling to get a job, then they should go flip burgers until they can find something better. They can make more flipping burgers than collecting welfare.

If they should flip burgers until something good comes along why did they go to college for four years and run up a shitload od debt? You don't make any damn sense. Many of these people can't even get low end jobs either. Its counter productive to send someone to college four years and tell them upon graduation to flip burgers for a living until a dream job comes along.

So your solution is for them to sit at home on their asses getting fatter as the days go by depending on the government. No sir, you don't make any damn sense.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I hate to break the news to you, but huh... there is no one living in America that was once a slave, they've pretty much died out. Oh and you do know that there were many blacks that owned slaves as well.

I thought the flying money right considered Social Security to be slavery.

the idea of paying into something you don't want, that is not an enumerated power, is indeed forced servitude. my personal belief, i don't speak for anyone but myself.

How much money have you been able to set aside for your retirement?

 

[DiamondDave]

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.


The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

usual and 'most ' know does not always apply though... and it has to do with context.. which you continually neglect in your trollish behavior

And I'll give you a hint... the direct object of a sentence is pretty damn important to context

Shall I take that to mean you don't follow any sort of rules of construction?

I will take it that it is fact that the most commonly used definition is not inherently the definition to be used in a particular case... like when you tried to use a definition pertaining to individuals when referring to a word used in a sentence about a group/state/entity

You are an out of context cherry picker.. and this has been repeatedly shown

 

[shintao]

If there all these so called "unemployed college grads" struggling to get a job, then they should go flip burgers until they can find something better. They can make more flipping burgers than collecting welfare.

If they should flip burgers until something good comes along why did they go to college for four years and run up a shitload od debt? You don't make any damn sense. Many of these people can't even get low end jobs either. Its counter productive to send someone to college four years and tell them upon graduation to flip burgers for a living until a dream job comes along.

So your solution is for them to sit at home on their asses getting fatter as the days go by depending on the government. No sir, you don't make any damn sense.

What did you say your solution was?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So Americans must love W Bush.. and the Iraq conflict... that's why they elected him to fight 2 wars... tell us how you love W Bush

Your lack of logic and refusal to look at reality is amazing

Americans love Socialism, dude. That's why, in 1888, the people pressured Congress into enacting the federal law providing veterans and the children of veterans with generous pensions.

Employment benefit is not socialism.. and that assertion that it is has been debunked on this site numerous times before your troll ass came on board

It's well established that the flying monkey right believes any government interference in the economy is socialism.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

the most commonly used definition is not inherently the definition to be used in a particular case.

It that a rule of construction you use to objectively and justly ascertain the will of the men who made the Magna Charta of our nation?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

you tried to use a definition pertaining to individuals when referring to a word used in a sentence about a group/state/entity.

What word are you referring to, and what definition did I use that you find so objectionable?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

you throw out of context quotes everywhere, and then attempt to lecture us? Get a fucking clue man.

You interpret the Constitution to suit your personal political views.

That is because my political views ARE the constitution. Any other brain busters?

What rules of construction do you use to interpret the Constitution?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

usual and 'most ' know does not always apply though, it has to do with context, the direct object of a sentence is pretty damn important to context

Is that a rule of construction you use to interpret the Constitution?

 

[Liberty]

You interpret the Constitution to suit your personal political views.

That is because my political views ARE the constitution. Any other brain busters?

What rules of construction do you use to interpret the Constitution?

the english language.

you don't need to have a law degree to read a simple worded 17 page (if you have a pocket constitution) document.

It is worded in plain language, in plain English. There is no "interpretation", there is either "right" or "wrong".

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

That is because my political views ARE the constitution. Any other brain busters?

What rules of construction do you use to interpret the Constitution?

The English language.

Such a rule of construction would seem to grant a great deal of latitude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

you don't need to have a law degree to read a simple worded document. It is worded in plain language, in plain English.

The Constitution is loaded with ambiguous language, dude.

There is no "interpretation", there is either "right" or "wrong".

What rules of interpretation should we use to determine if a proposed interpretation is right or wrong?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

John C. Calhoun Used Rules of Construction
​

Why, then, he asked, cannot Congress make peace? They have the power to declare war. All acknowledge this power. Peace and war are opposite. They are the positive and negative terms of the same proposition; and what rule of construction more clear than that, when a power is given to do an act, the power is also given to repeal it?

--John C. Calhoun

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Thomas Jefferson Was A Fan of Established Rules of Construction
​

It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will hear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless.

--Thomas Jefferson​

 

[Liberty]

you don't need to have a law degree to read a simple worded document. It is worded in plain language, in plain English.

The Constitution is loaded with ambiguous language, dude.

There is no "interpretation", there is either "right" or "wrong".

What rules of interpretation should we use to determine if a proposed interpretation is right or wrong?

everything is in plain english for me. maybe you should take a composition class.

if there is ambiguous language, or language that you don't understand, I'll be more than happy to tell you what it means.

 

[Liberty]

side note: Don't ever post quotes again, your George Mason debacle has destroyed your credibility, and you still haven't apologized for it.
edit:
you have a history, micky, of misrepresenting quotes and not providing context. Over and over and over, and yet you persist to destroy your credibility, and your own integrity willfully. You are truly a sad piece of scum.

in context quote:

"It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution."

Now seriously, get the fuck out.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

George Mason Believed In Rules of Construction
​

I doubt the safety of it [a proposal to grant Congress power "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies"], considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.

--George Mason

​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

By what rule of construction can it be maintained that the same words, in a constitution of government, will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another, as far as the subject is capable of it?

--Alexander Hamilton