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.
So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?Federal 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.
er... no it isn't unconstitutional.
congress has the right to legislate for the general welfare. and these issues have ALREADY been ruled on by the Supreme Court. and in case you're confused, they decide what's constitutional., not your baseless "opinion".
So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?Federal 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.
er... no it isn't unconstitutional.
congress has the right to legislate for the general welfare. and these issues have ALREADY been ruled on by the Supreme Court. and in case you're confused, they decide what's constitutional., not your baseless "opinion".
I think it was wrong.
unfortunately it is still constitutional because that has never been struck down.
and while I think your machinations are amusing, your "opinion" as to what its constitutional isn't relevant... whether you agree with the court or not.
if you have a problem with that, feel free to blame the founding fathers. but I'm pretty sure they don't care.
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!
Also a business that is doing well is far more likely to hire good people and pay them a good wage and benefits to keep them.
because there were never any such things as sweat shops... right?
because rich business owners are sooooo much more likely to take good care of their employees.
wishful thinking.
I worked for wages from the time I was 14 to well past the average retirement age, and I can honestly say that I never once even saw, much less worked in a sweatshop even during the years in which I visited hundreds of businesses.
And I have worked for but didn't make great wages or receive great benefits with businesses that were struggling. I have never ever been offered a job by a poor man. I have had tremendous opportunities and made very good money with businesses that were doing well.
And when I ran my own business, when I did well so did my employees. When I didn't do so well my employees had less opportunity to prosper if they got any work at all.
I worked from the time I was 14 too...
after all of the wage and hour laws and workplace safety laws were put in place by democrats.
and while I have no doubt you tried to treat employees well, history tells us that most people don't.
hence my saying it was wishful thinking to believe employers would suddenly look into their hearts and treat their employees well.
and every time I walk past the site where the triangle factory fire was, I am further convinced that it would be madness to rely upon the kindness of corporatists.
Federal 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.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
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!
Also a business that is doing well is far more likely to hire good people and pay them a good wage and benefits to keep them.
because there were never any such things as sweat shops... right?
because rich business owners are sooooo much more likely to take good care of their employees.
wishful thinking.
I worked for wages from the time I was 14 to well past the average retirement age, and I can honestly say that I never once even saw, much less worked in a sweatshop even during the years in which I visited hundreds of businesses.
And I have worked for but didn't make great wages or receive great benefits with businesses that were struggling. I have never ever been offered a job by a poor man. I have had tremendous opportunities and made very good money with businesses that were doing well.
And when I ran my own business, when I did well so did my employees. When I didn't do so well my employees had less opportunity to prosper if they got any work at all.
I worked from the time I was 14 too...
after all of the wage and hour laws and workplace safety laws were put in place by democrats.
and while I have no doubt you tried to treat employees well, history tells us that most people don't.
hence my saying it was wishful thinking to believe employers would suddenly look into their hearts and treat their employees well.
and every time I walk past the site where the triangle factory fire was, I am further convinced that it would be madness to rely upon the kindness of corporatists.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
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 .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So, if the Supreme Court isn't supposed to have any power to make decisions that are legally binding, what can the Supreme Court do, in your opinion?
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.
Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?
Alexander Hamilton who supported an extensive spending clause during the Constitutional Convention said this : language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8
Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.
Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.
Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?
When laws are interpreted by the courts it becomes new case law. Due try to keep up.
They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.
So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?
Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.
Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.
Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?
The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.
