Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Micky G. Jagger]

Implied Powers In The Constitution
​

The constitutionality of the measure [bill which established the subscribers of the bank into a corporation] he urged from a fair construction of those powers, expressly delegated, and from a necessary implication; for he insisted that the Constitution was a dead letter, if implied powers were not to be exercised.

--U. S. Representative John Vining of Delaware; 1791​

 

[saveliberty]

Implied Powers In The Constitution
​

The constitutionality of the measure [bill which established the subscribers of the bank into a corporation] he urged from a fair construction of those powers, expressly delegated, and from a necessary implication; for he insisted that the Constitution was a dead letter, if implied powers were not to be exercised.

--U. S. Representative John Vining of Delaware; 1791​

Describing a legal argument. Question. Are national banks owned by the government? I'd say whoever Mr. Vining is referring to, lost their argument. Banks are organizied under state charters dumbass.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Elbridge Gerry Applied Established Rules of Construction to the Constitution​

A fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the Constitution, authorizes establishing the subscribers of the bank into a corporation?

--Elbridge Gerry; On the Establishment of a National Bank; House of Representatives; February 2, 1791​

He is saying the Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a national bank. Interesting they thought starting a bank was not covered under general welfare, but YOU think public welfare is. Even when you do use your bizare interpretations, you fail.

The preamble of the Constitution declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union. This vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature. A national bank undoubtedly came under this idea.

--Founding Father Fisher Ames - Known as the Great Spokesman for New England Federalism; 1791​

 

[saveliberty]

Elbridge Gerry Applied Established Rules of Construction to the Constitution​

A fair and candid application of established rules of construction to the Constitution, authorizes establishing the subscribers of the bank into a corporation?

--Elbridge Gerry; On the Establishment of a National Bank; House of Representatives; February 2, 1791​

He is saying the Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a national bank. Interesting they thought starting a bank was not covered under general welfare, but YOU think public welfare is. Even when you do use your bizare interpretations, you fail.

The preamble of the Constitution declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union. This vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature. A national bank undoubtedly came under this idea.

--Founding Father Fisher Ames - Known as the Great Spokesman for New England Federalism; 1791​

States rights won the day. You lose.

 

[Flaylo]

He is saying the Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a national bank. Interesting they thought starting a bank was not covered under general welfare, but YOU think public welfare is. Even when you do use your bizare interpretations, you fail.

The preamble of the Constitution declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union. This vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature. A national bank undoubtedly came under this idea.

--Founding Father Fisher Ames - Known as the Great Spokesman for New England Federalism; 1791​

States rights won the day. You lose.

Your PMS inspired rants are not as intensive but you still lack all coherence when making an argument. You want states right, well how would you feel if Democrats ran your state with the same socially liberal programs that the federal government provides, what are you going to do then, call for secession?

 

[saveliberty]

Your PMS inspired rants are not as intensive but you still lack all coherence when making an argument. You want states right, well how would you feel if Democrats ran your state with the same socially liberal programs that the federal government provides, what are you going to do then, call for secession?

I'm a guy.

Applying Micky's rules of construction:

Intensive: Possessing or displaying a distinctive feature to an extreme degree. Which would mean you feel I'm not extreme, thanks.

We have state's rights, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Talk about an incoherent post...

 

[Flaylo]

Your PMS inspired rants are not as intensive but you still lack all coherence when making an argument. You want states right, well how would you feel if Democrats ran your state with the same socially liberal programs that the federal government provides, what are you going to do then, call for secession?

I'm a guy.

Applying Micky's rules of construction:

Intensive: Possessing or displaying a distinctive feature to an extreme degree. Which would mean you feel I'm not extreme, thanks.

We have state's rights, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Talk about an incoherent post...

You ducked my question John Wayne, no answer it, if state legislators enacted and ran the same socially liberal programs that you're bitching the federal government out about, will you accept it as the right of the state?

 

[saveliberty]

Your PMS inspired rants are not as intensive but you still lack all coherence when making an argument. You want states right, well how would you feel if Democrats ran your state with the same socially liberal programs that the federal government provides, what are you going to do then, call for secession?

I'm a guy.

Applying Micky's rules of construction:

Intensive: Possessing or displaying a distinctive feature to an extreme degree. Which would mean you feel I'm not extreme, thanks.

We have state's rights, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Talk about an incoherent post...

You ducked my question John Wayne, no answer it, if state legislators enacted and ran the same socially liberal programs that you're bitching the federal government out about, will you accept it as the right of the state?

Your asking a hypothetical with few particulars, only a fool would answer your question, or ask it to begin with.

 

[Flaylo]

I'm a guy.

Applying Micky's rules of construction:

Intensive: Possessing or displaying a distinctive feature to an extreme degree. Which would mean you feel I'm not extreme, thanks.

We have state's rights, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Talk about an incoherent post...

You ducked my question John Wayne, no answer it, if state legislators enacted and ran the same socially liberal programs that you're bitching the federal government out about, will you accept it as the right of the state?

Your asking a hypothetical with few particulars, only a fool would answer your question, or ask it to begin with.

My question is straughtforward John Wayne so quit being a sissy and answer it.

 

[saveliberty]

You ducked my question John Wayne, no answer it, if state legislators enacted and ran the same socially liberal programs that you're bitching the federal government out about, will you accept it as the right of the state?

Your asking a hypothetical with few particulars, only a fool would answer your question, or ask it to begin with.

My question is straughtforward John Wayne so quit being a sissy and answer it.

Oh, well you called me a sissy, so I HAVE to answer your question. No, wait, I don't. Go ahead ask me again fool.

 

[Liberty]

You ducked my question John Wayne, no answer it, if state legislators enacted and ran the same socially liberal programs that you're bitching the federal government out about, will you accept it as the right of the state?

Your asking a hypothetical with few particulars, only a fool would answer your question, or ask it to begin with.

My question is straughtforward John Wayne so quit being a sissy and answer it.

Hey dude, FUCK YOU. You never respond and completely ignore people who rationally and logically destroy your argument and your ideology, yet you have the gall to demand responses of others? Fuck you, seriously.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I clearly GAVE you the rules

Rules for what?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.

As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

--Blackstone​

When was Edward III part of writing the Constitution?

Beats me, Pogo.

taking things out of context

What did I take out of context?

 

[saveliberty]

I clearly GAVE you the rules

Rules for what?

He isn't with stupid, he's the rules of construction of stupid.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

We must judge of expressions from the subject matter concerning which they are used.

--James Iredell at the South Carolina Ratification Convention during a debate regarding the construction of the the words "sole power of impeachment" in the Constitution.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I clearly GAVE you the rules

Rules for what?

He isn't with stupid, he's the rules of construction of stupid.

I do believe it is time to add you to my ignore list.

 

[saveliberty]

Rules for what?

He isn't with stupid, he's the rules of construction of stupid.

Its time to add you to my ignore list.

Promise?

 

[saveliberty]

We must judge of expressions from the subject matter concerning which they are used.

--James Iredell at the South Carolina Ratification Convention during a debate regarding the construction of the the words "sole power of impeachment" in the Constitution.

Moving from rules of construction to subject matter? Sounds subjective to me.

P.S. I'm not going to ignore you. I'm going to comment on insane post after stupid post you write.

 

[DiamondDave]

Rules for what?

He isn't with stupid, he's the rules of construction of stupid.

Its time to add you to my ignore list.

Better yet... ignore the board and do your idiotic trolling elsewhere where you MAY actually find someone dumber than you who might believe it

 

[Charles_Main]

Why are liberals incapable of an honest Debate. If any One is calling for "ending social programs" it is a tiny tiny Minority even with in the Republican Party and Conservative movement. Calling for the partial privatization of something, or for moving responsibility for them to the state level. IS NOT the same as wanting to end them all, and that is what most Conservative Republicans want. No matter how many times you LIE and say we want to end all social programs, you will not make it true.

So this entire thread is based on Liberal Lies and propaganda. They are unable to point to more than a small handful of people when they make these wild claims about what Republicans and Conservatives want to do about social programs like SS, and Medicare.

If you are forced to lump everyone from a group together and misrepresent their ideas, as the title of this thread does. Then you have already lost the arguments.