Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Votto]

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.

Thank you for explaining what "general welfare" means, goober. I'm always interested in the unremarkable constitutional scholarly musings of an unsophisticated, know-nothing Repug such as yourself.

First of all, if he is a Republican the proper term is not Repug, it is an Obamacare loving Pube.

Secondly, I've already provided you with the Madison quote about the General Welfare clause because he wrote it.

"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."

Now run along and go burn down a city in a Trump protest or something.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The fact that it can do it, that it has done it by any name, does not make it constitutional.

Except for the fact that over more than 200 years no one has proven it is unconstitutional.

With the exception of Dred Scott v Sanford in 1857, the Supreme Court has never made law until the 20th Century and only in recent decades have made rulings that constitute and are treated as law. And because we have created a permanent political class in Washington who uses the courts for its own purposes, and due to the incredible ignorance of a people most of whom have never read the Constitution much less understand or appreciate it, SCOTUS and lower courts are rarely challenged when they do that.

Dears, the left wing need merely prove that any given public policy provides for the general welfare and not the general warfare, when federalists are involved.

 

[danielpalos]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

[Foxfyre]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated when somebody is accused of a crime or be the arbitrator to apply the letter of the law when there are disagreements on how the law should be applied. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

 

[danielpalos]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated when somebody is accused of a crime or be the arbitrator to apply the letter of the law when there are disagreements on how the law should be applied. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics. Except for our federal Constitution, Congress writes existing law. The common law applies when it is not covered by existing law.

 

[Lewdog]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

 

[Foxfyre]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

 

[Lewdog]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

 

[Timmy]

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.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

You are being ridiculous. The con is not some exhaustive list of what is allowed. It clearly describes how laws can be written and created.

The constitution doesn't say we must stop at Red lights . Are red lights unconstitutional? Must we have a convention to pass a red light amendment ?

That would be silly . Stop being stupid .

 

[Foxfyre]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

You are being ridiculous. The con is not some exhaustive list of what is allowed. It clearly describes how laws can be written and created.

The constitution doesn't say we must stop at Red lights . Are red lights unconstitutional? Must we have a convention to pass a red light amendment ?

That would be silly . Stop being stupid .

Roads are regulated by the govt. That is the way it is supposed to be. Nice fail

 

[Lewdog]

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

 

[TNHarley]

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

you mean the guys you were just calling hacks?

 

[Lewdog]

Lewdog is all over the place. He just said the SC sucks
Consistency ya big dummy

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.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

You are being ridiculous. The con is not some exhaustive list of what is allowed. It clearly describes how laws can be written and created.

The constitution doesn't say we must stop at Red lights . Are red lights unconstitutional? Must we have a convention to pass a red light amendment ?

That would be silly . Stop being stupid .

Roads are regulated by the govt. That is the way it is supposed to be. Nice fail

I didn't say they sucked. I said they are used as a tool by the parties, and that the people aren't always selected based on the fact that they can make unbiased decisions. But that's why there are 9 Justices on the court that are given their appointments for life... so that it isn't so easy for a single party to take control of the power of the Supreme Court through their appointments.

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

you mean the guys you were just calling hacks?

Again, that isn't what I said.

 

[Timmy]

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.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

You are being ridiculous. The con is not some exhaustive list of what is allowed. It clearly describes how laws can be written and created.

The constitution doesn't say we must stop at Red lights . Are red lights unconstitutional? Must we have a convention to pass a red light amendment ?

That would be silly . Stop being stupid .

Roads are regulated by the govt. That is the way it is supposed to be. Nice fail

How is that a fail? You're thread title implies Welfare is unconstitutional, because it's not mentioned in the con. Neither are red lights .

 

[Foxfyre]

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

As was I.

 

[Foxfyre]

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

you mean the guys you were just calling hacks?

Again, that isn't what I said.

I thought you were done? If we can't take you seriously about something like that, how reliable are you when you state anything else?

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

As was I.

You just said... "has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself."

That would be a large sarcasm fail on your part.

 

[TNHarley]

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Except it does... because Case Law exist and has for several, several years.

And with that, I'm out because there is no point in discussing a subject with people on a forum that think they know more about the way government works and what is constitutional more than people that are highly educated in law and devoted their entire lives to the profession.

Oh good. I was definitely at a disadvantage arguing the intent of the Constitution with somebody who is so highly educated in law and who has devoted his entire life to the profession such as yourself.

I wasn't referring to myself... I was talking about the many people that have served on the Supreme Court, and all those members of government that have supported the Supreme Court over the years.

you mean the guys you were just calling hacks?

Again, that isn't what I said.

Lol Ok! Lets sit here and argue semantics!