Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's face it. We are never going to turn the clock back to 1776 and abolish half the government. What is needed is a constitution that reflects current and future needs of the country, not life as is was over 200 years ago. We should keep the Bill of Rights and rewrite the rest.
At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?
At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?
No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.
At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?
No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.
Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...
all these things are valid, constitutional exercises of power that sometimes result in government...and ARE NOT unconstitutional!
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!
Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.
The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?
Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.
No, we cannot agree to that, because it is not true.
Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...
all these things are valid, constitutional exercises of power that sometimes result in government...and ARE NOT unconstitutional!
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!
Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.
Be careful, otherwise he'll put you on his ignore list.
I would agree that we need to rewrite the whole document, from start to finish so that we CAN go back to 1776 and abolish 90% of the government. I wouldn't even keep the Bill of Rights.
Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!
Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.
That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?
Anything that provides to the general public any of these things:I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?
Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.
They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.
I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?
Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.
Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...
Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!
They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.
Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.
I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?
That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?
Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.
I would agree that we need to rewrite the whole document, from start to finish so that we CAN go back to 1776 and abolish 90% of the government. I wouldn't even keep the Bill of Rights.
That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?
Wow, you're advocating the destruction of our country. That is mindnumbing.
You simply are not willing to accept any federal government at all. You want the federal government to be dissolved, and you try to justify it by claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. Of course, you've already shown your disdain for the constitution by saying we should put the whole thing aside and we should eliminate the constitution's guarantees of freedoms that it promises the people. Kinda hypocritical how you try to invoke the constitution in an attempt to decry it. You refuse to acknowledge the truth, because it doesn't fit into your preordained extremist ideology.
Then get the fuck out and don't come back. This is a debate messageboard. It's not the day care room for whiny little brats who want to throw temper tantrums.
The only one I see who doesn't deserve American freedoms is you, because you're advocating the destruction of our country, our constitution, and our freedoms. You're the Unabomer, McVeigh, and bin Laden all rolled up into one.
Somalia is an option. Bye-Bye.
I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?
I can't find the words "supercarrier", "stealth bomber" or "attack drone" in the Constitution either. Hmmmmmmm
God, not that smelly old red herring again.
But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...
To raise and support Armies..
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To...exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?
Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.
Lord knows where Fabian socialist thugs like you would've taken this nation, were it not for that list of a few clearly defined "thou shalt nots" slapped on authoritarian central bankster despots like Hamilton.
Now, have the nice man in the white coat give you your daily dose of Thorazine.
I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?
Federalist #41, which was written by the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, spelled out in no uncertain and/or opinionated terms what was meant by "general welfare".The Federalist Papers were a series of Opinions and Editorials meant to get citizens on board with the revolution. Most notably the people of New York.
While they are interesting and add "some" insight..they are not were legislation is drawn from.
Because those were the parts that mattered for the purposes of the current conversation....The truncations did nothing to change the context or meaning of the given passages.I can't find the words "supercarrier", "stealth bomber" or "attack drone" in the Constitution either. Hmmmmmmm
God, not that smelly old red herring again.
But you can find, in Article 1, Section 8...
You left out a few things..
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I find those omissions odd, especially since you cut one clause in half.
Now why was that?
Yes. It most certainly is. Get your head out of your ass. Realize that case law, constitutional doctrines that arise out of case law, federal statutes...pant pant...I could go on and on...
Assuming you're right (and I don't believe you are); then it's simply the final proof that this country has no value and never has had any value and needs to be nuked out of existance for the betterment of the human race just like Europe.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may delegate the task of implementing its laws to government agencies. BOOM! There it is! Agencies that are NOT in the constitution are CONSTI-freakin-TUTIONAL!!
They cannot vest power in an agency when CONGRESS never had the power to begin with. There is NO MANDATE or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for CONGRESS to even be doing most of the things it does, nevermind any agency underneath it.
Seriously...please learn how this country works...then come back and actually debate something with some ammo.
I have no interest in debate. My viewpoints do not change. So why would I waste my time debating anything with anyone?
That's a rather sad piece of information, that you so hate freedom that you want to rewrite the constitution to eliminate our constitutionally protected rights. If you hate American freedom so much, why don't you just move to some Mid East dictatorship?
Most Americans don't deserve those freedoms, rights, or liberties. If there was a Middle Eastern country that allowed for private ownership of firearms, I'd have been there the better part of 20 years ago.
The pedantic Hamilton rubric is debunked by the mere existence of both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers (the most salient of which which were, oh-by-the-way, written by fellow Federalist James Madison).You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?
Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.
Lord knows where Fabian socialist thugs like you would've taken this nation, were it not for that list of a few clearly defined "thou shalt nots" slapped on authoritarian central bankster despots like Hamilton.
Now, have the nice man in the white coat give you your daily dose of Thorazine.
