The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[thereisnospoon]

States rights: Code for conservative corruption, bigotry, and stupidity.

Franco......Code for liberal closed mindedness and stupidity

 

[johnwk]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

That might have been the first real test, but it's constitutional...

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, you expect the court to determine their own abuses of power unconstitutional, will never happen.

Liberals LOVE the courts. Take a look at history. Every single piece of major liberal legislation has become law as a result of lawsuits and complaints from the Left.
The Courts have been dictating social policy absent of Congressional action for decades.
And here we go.....We will now be treated to barrage of the typical liberal screech. Brown v Board of Ed. Roe v Wade. They may even go for non hetero marriage.
The fact is the Courts exist so that any aggrieved party may seek redress against government action. And that is a good thing, However, liberals believe this right is exclusive to THEIR point of view.
For example. The Courts have been used by liberals to affirm THEIR right to free speech in the same instance quashing the free speech rights of those with which liberals disagree.
When liberals protest the actions of Christians, they use the courts as a means to claim their rights are being violated. So en essence, the Courts issue these convoluted rulings that are not neutral.

You are spot on. We have a supreme court which repeatedly has used its office of public trust to impose its personal sense of justice, fairness, or reasonableness, instead of enforcing both the text and documented legislative intent of our Constitution, which gives context to its text.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

You are the least productive USMB poster. Never have you started a thread. Never do you contribute to any discussion except to reaffirm your shrill partisan support for the absolute WORST liberalism and progressivism have to offer.

 

[OKTexas]

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

Simple, any court decision would be stayed for 180 days, then State legislators would vote to accept or reject the opinion. Could it get messy, you bet, but given the present political climate there is no way congress will hold the courts feet to the fire when they stray from their defined duties, like ignoring black letter law and entering into the realm of legislation, like they did twice with the ACA.

This is unmitigated idiocy and completely contrary to our republican form of government and the right of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law; where – again – citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule'; whether that's a majority of individual voters or a majority of the states.

What ever.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

Well your opinion of Obama has been noticed, but I think I'll wait to see how history rates Obama. The history one, is the one that will probably go into America's history textbooks. The people have already expressed their opinion with two elections, and while Bush tried to get the worst president rating he missed by four presidents.

Textbooks are no longer sources of information. Textbooks students use are now editorialized to present a certain viewpoint of the facts.

 

[johnwk]

Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.

dishonest politicians = criminals

Agreed!

JWK

 

[johnwk]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

Wrong.

This is a myth popular among many on the right – and like all myths it's completely false.

The Supreme Court is authorized .

What members of our Supreme Court are authorized to do is stated in our Constitution ___ to support and defend "this Constitution". And this brings us to the rules of constitutional construction under which we discover its meaning, the most fundamental rule is stated as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

And this brings us to original source material in which the intentions and beliefs of the founders is documented, such as: Madison's Notes, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.


JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[regent]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

Well your opinion of Obama has been noticed, but I think I'll wait to see how history rates Obama. The history one, is the one that will probably go into America's history textbooks. The people have already expressed their opinion with two elections, and while Bush tried to get the worst president rating he missed by four presidents.

Textbooks are no longer sources of information. Textbooks students use are now editorialized to present a certain viewpoint of the facts.

 

[regent]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

Well your opinion of Obama has been noticed, but I think I'll wait to see how history rates Obama. The history one, is the one that will probably go into America's history textbooks. The people have already expressed their opinion with two elections, and while Bush tried to get the worst president rating he missed by four presidents.

Textbooks are no longer sources of information. Textbooks students use are now editorialized to present a certain viewpoint of the facts.

And the textbooks do not present your viewpoint on facts, right? So if textbooks are not sources of historical facts, what is now the accepted source of historical facts?
Do schools including colleges use this new source of facts, or do they still require students to buy or use textbooks?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mario Cuomo: "Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor" while Reaganists steal you blind, stupid. see sig

Mario Cuomo....The guy who taxed much of New York's employers out of the State. Because of Cuomo's obsession with expanding an already hypergenerous welfare state, increased taxes on everything that was not nailed to the floor. as a result there are STILL areas of NY State which have never recovered. These places that were once vibrant population centers are now virtual ghost towns. And all because Cuomo's idea that "if you're not in New York, you're nowhere"....Also, Cuomo increased wages and benefits to public sector workers to stratospheric levels. There was never a new tax or fee Cuomo and his minions did not like or approve. At the start of Cuomo's first term, NY had 39 Congressional seats. Now the state has 27.
People migrate away from their home state for a variety or reasons. Number one is in their view excessive taxation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

Is that so? Well now, let us look at the facts:


The sad truth is, Obama has added more to the national debt than all other presidents combined;


He has given aid and comfort to our enemies by releasing them from GITMO;


He has attempted to strike a deal with a hostile foreign nation behind closed doors and without the consent of the United State Senate being required as commanded by our Constitution;


He is allowing a thousand Islamic "refugees" into the U.S. each month without proper screening or a requirement they renounce an allegiance to their country of origin;


He has transferred America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile Islamic leaders [the Islamic Brother Hood];


He has assisted an Islamic terrorist state to move forward with producing the component parts for a nuclear arsenal;


He has worked to release $150 Billion in assets to the terrorist government of Iran;


He has allowed our southern border to be invaded by the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America;


He has decided to prop up the communist government of Cuba by normalizing relations, which in turn will yield a needed infusion of money to strengthen this government’s iron fist around the necks of its citizens;


He has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens from our nation’s jails into our nation’s population;


He is responsible for undermining our election process by making it easy for ineligible persons to vote;


He has interfered with our nation’s ability to develop our nation’s natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas, to fuel our economy;


He has worked to stifle America’s agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity;


He has intentionally sabotaged our nation’s health care delivery system;


He has blatantly impinged upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving food stamps;


He is responsible for a dramatic drop in fulltime employment;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate among our nation’s Black and poverty stricken youth;


He has used the force of our federal government to tax the paychecks of hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities and then transferred $ billions from our federal treasury to his inner circle friends under the guise of “green energy” [Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc.];


He has repeatedly circumvented our Republican Form of Government by issuing Executive Orders and memorandums;


He has stood by and allowed his Administration to use the force of the federal government to attack "conservatives" who dare to exercise their right to freedom of speech;


And he has now started to disarm local police forces which are America’s front line in dealing with domestic terrorism!


Who can truthfully deny Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America from within?


JWK

My, you're totally FOS lol. Change the channel. But thanks for the Pubspam, all totally discredited except in on Planet Pubpropaganda. Heard of the 2008 corrupt Pub World Depression, btw? About 6 trillion of Obama's debt was bailing out the country's economy and assisting victims. STILL 300 billion/year, chump.

......Keep voting liberal. It is YOUR fault the country is in the shitter.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

Is that so? Well now, let us look at the facts:


The sad truth is, Obama has added more to the national debt than all other presidents combined;


He has given aid and comfort to our enemies by releasing them from GITMO;


He has attempted to strike a deal with a hostile foreign nation behind closed doors and without the consent of the United State Senate being required as commanded by our Constitution;


He is allowing a thousand Islamic "refugees" into the U.S. each month without proper screening or a requirement they renounce an allegiance to their country of origin;


He has transferred America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile Islamic leaders [the Islamic Brother Hood];


He has assisted an Islamic terrorist state to move forward with producing the component parts for a nuclear arsenal;


He has worked to release $150 Billion in assets to the terrorist government of Iran;


He has allowed our southern border to be invaded by the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America;


He has decided to prop up the communist government of Cuba by normalizing relations, which in turn will yield a needed infusion of money to strengthen this government’s iron fist around the necks of its citizens;


He has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens from our nation’s jails into our nation’s population;


He is responsible for undermining our election process by making it easy for ineligible persons to vote;


He has interfered with our nation’s ability to develop our nation’s natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas, to fuel our economy;


He has worked to stifle America’s agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity;


He has intentionally sabotaged our nation’s health care delivery system;


He has blatantly impinged upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving food stamps;


He is responsible for a dramatic drop in fulltime employment;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate among our nation’s Black and poverty stricken youth;


He has used the force of our federal government to tax the paychecks of hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities and then transferred $ billions from our federal treasury to his inner circle friends under the guise of “green energy” [Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc.];


He has repeatedly circumvented our Republican Form of Government by issuing Executive Orders and memorandums;


He has stood by and allowed his Administration to use the force of the federal government to attack "conservatives" who dare to exercise their right to freedom of speech;


And he has now started to disarm local police forces which are America’s front line in dealing with domestic terrorism!


Who can truthfully deny Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America from within?


JWK

My, you're totally FOS lol. Change the channel. But thanks for the Pubspam, all totally discredited except in on Planet Pubpropaganda. Heard of the 2008 corrupt Pub World Depression, btw? About 6 trillion of Obama's debt was bailing out the country's economy and assisting victims. STILL 300 billion/year, chump.

Islamist sympathizer

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

It's just a stupid fucking RWNJ meme that says lazy liberal layabouts are takers while RWNJ's go to work every day to support them.

The actual truth is that right-wingers are the largest block of people who require Medicare and Social Security, and who enlist in the military, the three LARGEST gov't programs in America today.

Why are online political message boards and AM talk radio disproportionately filled with paranoid, angry, delusional RWNJ's? How does Fox News totally trample every other American cable news network in EVERY SINGLE time slot? Because liberals have actual lives and responsibilities like working to support their families and to support red states that disproportionately take more tax dollars from the feds than they pay into the system. Well-known fact that inconveniences RWNJ's who try their best to not let in to their bizarro bubble of ignorance.

Gov't spending is so high because of aging white fucks collecting a couple gov't checks every month who never miss an opportunity to vote those things away. I say let's do it. Cut 'em off. Fly over states will die off even sooner without the help they say they don't want yet absolutely need in order to survive.

Come on.. Even the most partisan of Lefties knows this is bullshit.
Yours is an effort that struggles to rise to the level of mediocre.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.

In your opinion.....Choose your response carefully....Is the federal government "superior" to the states?
Before you answer read this....CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is so stupid it's self fulfilling. You're trying to live out a Star Wars fantasy in a Star Trek universe. Well, good luck with that.

All liberals believe the federal government should have absolute power over everything. For this ( Washington) where decisions most favorable to the liberal agenda have come.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is so stupid it's self fulfilling. You're trying to live out a Star Wars fantasy in a Star Trek universe. Well, good luck with that.

Really, tell me exactly where I got it wrong.

Here comes the opinion

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing but subjective, errant opinions from the right, devoid of fact or merit.

Nothing but the same silly, unfounded 'argument' from the right that the Supreme Court is 'wrong.'

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

I don't think many are impressed with your use of the Federalist Papers, and

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

It was three people's opinions of how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution was ratified, and even the three disagreed with each other. Citing the Federalist Papers in some court cases, is good legal tactics; as someone said: citing the framers in some court cases is similar to citing the Bible. What evidence do we have that the Court relies on the Papers?

Think about it and sprinkle your thoughts with a little reason. Why would any SCOTUS Justice writing an opinion, concurrence or dissent cite from the Federalist? How about 'original intent' of the framers! Comparing the Federalist to the bible is just plain silly and ignorant.

If SCOTUS didn't rely on the Federalist Papers, why the HELL would they have cited them in well over 200 cases in the last 220 years (206 cases between 1789 and 1985) < http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=fac_articles >? If the Supremes didn't rely on them why the Hell would they be citing them in their opinions, concurrences and dissents? Engage brain and think about that!!!!

I just told you, by giving a boost to one's decision by citing the framers, founding fathers, Constitutionalist scholars, medal of honor winners, George Washington or anyone that will make their decision more in tune with that most people think of as America.
Do you think the Court is unaware of its image in America? Is the Congress, the president? The Court plays the political game also, it just does it on a slightly higher plane, that many Americans miss,

All you have is your unfounded and baseless OPINIONS, ignorance of existing evidence presented and strident a strident opposition and acceptance of facts. FACTS trump conflicting OPINIONS every time! You have nothing at all worthwhile to discuss at this time, so I'm done with you!

 

[OKTexas]

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.[/QUOTE

Was it? What does that have to do with the price of spuds? I guess your mind went walk about again.

THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES was never part of the discussion in the first place IDIOT! You brought it up, DUMMY! Again, the discussion revolved around the McCulloch v. Maryland and the finding that the State trying to collect taxes from the SECOND BANK was unconstitutional. You keep jumping off to other subjects to cover your errors and abject ignorance!

Did you find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution you boasted you knew of and I didn't? Fuck no, so you instead you dance and deflect to cover your IGNORANCE and faulty claim! Like I said, all hat and no cattle, Tex!

Hey dummy, the concept is the same, there is no need for national banks, history proves it. If the bank is not needed to fulfill the requirement of an enumerated power, it's unconstitutional, so yes the State had every right to tax it as a private corporation.
BTW the Second Nation Banks charter was also NOT renewed by congress and the country survived just fine, once again it was NOT a necessary and proper use of any enumerated power.

 

[regent]

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

I don't think many are impressed with your use of the Federalist Papers, and

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

It was three people's opinions of how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution was ratified, and even the three disagreed with each other. Citing the Federalist Papers in some court cases, is good legal tactics; as someone said: citing the framers in some court cases is similar to citing the Bible. What evidence do we have that the Court relies on the Papers?

Think about it and sprinkle your thoughts with a little reason. Why would any SCOTUS Justice writing an opinion, concurrence or dissent cite from the Federalist? How about 'original intent' of the framers! Comparing the Federalist to the bible is just plain silly and ignorant.

If SCOTUS didn't rely on the Federalist Papers, why the HELL would they have cited them in well over 200 cases in the last 220 years (206 cases between 1789 and 1985) < http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=fac_articles >? If the Supremes didn't rely on them why the Hell would they be citing them in their opinions, concurrences and dissents? Engage brain and think about that!!!!

I just told you, by giving a boost to one's decision by citing the framers, founding fathers, Constitutionalist scholars, medal of honor winners, George Washington or anyone that will make their decision more in tune with that most people think of as America.
Do you think the Court is unaware of its image in America? Is the Congress, the president? The Court plays the political game also, it just does it on a slightly higher plane, that many Americans miss,

All you have is your unfounded and baseless OPINIONS, ignorance of existing evidence presented and strident a strident opposition and acceptance of facts. FACTS trump conflicting OPINIONS every time! You have nothing at all worthwhile to discuss at this time, so I'm done with you!

Can't cope, eh? There are some excellent texts on this very subject. I can give you one if you like, By the way, Jay never attended the Constitution convention and Hamilton seldom.