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.
Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.Better than waiting in line for my next marching order
Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.
You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Are you saying that if elected officials chose to outlaw abortions you'd be good with that?
No . But if they passed an amendment I'd be stuck .
Oh. I assume u mean a 100% ban . Since it is already legal for states to have some restrictions.
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.
You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.
You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.
You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.
So your license say United States instead of the State in which you reside? Did the federal government ISSUE that license?
So again I ask what your point was. Can you provide case law of any kind which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional?
I said issue, retard.
Can you provide where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to fund food stamps, government housing, or any other social welfare program?
Ding dong ^^^ the echo is at the door.
Marbury v. Madison ring a bell?
Read Art III then explain why the COTUS is not a living document!
One hundred years ago The Congress passed the Selective Service Act which was signed by President Wilson. Where in Art I or Art II was the draft authorized?
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
You righties want to be strict constitutionalists. Except when it doesn't suit you .
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
Yes it was designed to be changed. The founders provided a way to change it. That you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it.
"Who gives a shit what the founders would think" There we have it folks, the typical left wing Constitution hater.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
Yes it was designed to be changed. The founders provided a way to change it. That you don't like it doesn't mean you can ignore it.
"Who gives a shit what the founders would think" There we have it folks, the typical left wing Constitution hater.
No really . Who cares ? We have the constitution, we have the rule book . Why do I care if Tom Jefferson really liked to smoke weed ?
Wry I don't care why we are in debt but we are...20 trillion dollars. It has to be paid off so we all must tighten the belt.The 20 T debt is a product of two wars, The Great Recession and Tax Cuts
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.
So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .
You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!
The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.
So your license say United States instead of the State in which you reside? Did the federal government ISSUE that license?
So again I ask what your point was. Can you provide case law of any kind which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional?
I said issue, retard.
Can you provide where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to fund food stamps, government housing, or any other social welfare program?
Ding dong ^^^ the echo is at the door.
Marbury v. Madison ring a bell?
Read Art III then explain why the COTUS is not a living document!
One hundred years ago The Congress passed the Selective Service Act which was signed by President Wilson. Where in Art I or Art II was the draft authorized?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.So your license say United States instead of the State in which you reside? Did the federal government ISSUE that license?
So again I ask what your point was. Can you provide case law of any kind which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional?
I said issue, retard.
Can you provide where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to fund food stamps, government housing, or any other social welfare program?
Ding dong ^^^ the echo is at the door.
Marbury v. Madison ring a bell?
Read Art III then explain why the COTUS is not a living document!
One hundred years ago The Congress passed the Selective Service Act which was signed by President Wilson. Where in Art I or Art II was the draft authorized?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
No, it was not. It was supposed to be difficult to change, and timeless.
And we are not an oligarchy ruled over by a group of non-elected old men and women in robes. SCOTUS often gets it wrong, and the changes that gave us abortion for all is one huge example of them getting it wrong. They did not interpret the law to make abortion legal. They CREATED law. They legislated from the bench, which is a huge no-no, for the exact reason illustrated by the mess we have to deal with now, because of it.
General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.
Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?
[The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;]
Explain what the words in the clause mean!
"General welfare" doesn't mean "foodstamps and a salary for being drug addicted, stupid and/or mentally ill".
If doesn't? Well, do tell, what does it mean?
Exactly.The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.
So again I ask what your point was. Can you provide case law of any kind which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional?
I said issue, retard.
Can you provide where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to fund food stamps, government housing, or any other social welfare program?
Ding dong ^^^ the echo is at the door.
Marbury v. Madison ring a bell?
Read Art III then explain why the COTUS is not a living document!
One hundred years ago The Congress passed the Selective Service Act which was signed by President Wilson. Where in Art I or Art II was the draft authorized?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Changing the fundamentals of the Constitution does. You want it changed by Congress. Not how it works.
The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.
"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .
Problem is you lefties support changing the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law which goes against what the founders intended for it to do.
WHo gives a shit what the founders would think . They are not gods .
As for abortion . The sup Ct found you have a con right to privacy with your own body .
Shit comes up that wasn't included when the con was created . The whole thing was designed to be changeable with the times .
No, it was not. It was supposed to be difficult to change, and timeless.
And we are not an oligarchy ruled over by a group of non-elected old men and women in robes. SCOTUS often gets it wrong, and the changes that gave us abortion for all is one huge example of them getting it wrong. They did not interpret the law to make abortion legal. They CREATED law. They legislated from the bench, which is a huge no-no, for the exact reason illustrated by the mess we have to deal with now, because of it.
The con created the courts to decide unforeseen disputes . How ironic that you hate the constitution while talking about how you love it ! ?
General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutionalFunny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:
“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”
That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.
You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?
Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg
Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.
General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.
Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?
[The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;]
Explain what the words in the clause mean!
"General welfare" doesn't mean "foodstamps and a salary for being drug addicted, stupid and/or mentally ill".
If doesn't? Well, do tell, what does it mean?
Madison, who helped write the Constitution, had this to say about the General Welfare clause.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Of course, Dims reject this so they either force the Constitution to evolve or completely ignore it altogether.
I wish I could winner these both a couple more times.General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutionalFunny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:
“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”
That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.
You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?
Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg
Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.
<3
