Welfare is Unconstitutional

[TNHarley]

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 .

Roads are dummy. The govt has the right to regulate them.
Its an apples and orange comparison. Im not surprised you dont understand.

 

[Lewdog]

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?

Yeah, I'm not going to argue about the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court any longer. But I'm not going to sit back and let people try to put words in my mouth and misrepresent what I've said.

 

[Lewdog]

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!

There is nothing to argue in semantics. You tried to say I said something that I didn't say.

 

[TNHarley]

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!

There is nothing to argue in semantics. You tried to say I said something that I didn't say.

OK
You can leave now

 

[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.

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.

I rather thought it was successful sarcasm to point out the huge hypocrisy in your assuming you had superior wisdom to argue the issue and that those of us, especially me, who disagreed with you or argued something different were unworthy of your time and attention.

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

That's one of the usual tactics when they have to cover up the flaws in their own arguments.

 

[Conservative65]

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 .

The Constitution describes on what areas those laws can be written at the federal level. It doesn't have to provide an exhaustive list. Article I, Section 8 provides a list of areas. If the area isn't within the authority of the federal government, the Constitution also says what level of government has the authority to make laws on them. 10th Amendment is a good source for that.

The Constitution doesn't have to say anything about red lights. Since it doesn't, states get to make laws related to them. If you ever get a ticket for running one, it's written by a state/local official for violating STATE law not federal law. The only way red lights would become a federal matter is if an amendment was passed. Until then, they belong to the States and are constitutional to be at that level.

 

[Conservative65]

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 .

The fail is you misunderstand how federalism works entirely. Red lights don't have to be listed to be constitutional. Welfare done at the federal level is because no authority to do so exists at that level.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

 

[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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws dictated by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

 

[Timmy]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws dictated by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

They settle disputes because congress will carelessly write laws . If the court rules and congress doesn't like it, they can usually just fix things wh new legislation.

Checks n balances , bitches !

 

[Timmy]

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 .

The fail is you misunderstand how federalism works entirely. Red lights don't have to be listed to be constitutional. Welfare done at the federal level is because no authority to do so exists at that level.

They passed a welfare law . What's unconstitutional about that ?

 

[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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

 

[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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws dictated by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

They settle disputes because congress will carelessly write laws . If the court rules and congress doesn't like it, they can usually just fix things wh new legislation.

Checks n balances , bitches !

The function of the court is to determine what the existing law is and how it is intended to be applied to settle disputes. It is NOT intended to change the law or write new law to settle disputes. And it is not given any jurisdiction to dictate whether Congress is being careless in the laws it passes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

What? You're arguing that state and local governments should have the right to simply ignore the 2nd amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws dictated by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

They settle disputes because congress will carelessly write laws . If the court rules and congress doesn't like it, they can usually just fix things wh new legislation.

Checks n balances , bitches !

The function of the court is to determine what the existing law is and how it is intended to be applied to settle disputes. It is NOT intended to change the law or write new law to settle disputes.

The function of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not laws are constitutional, and to strike down those that it decides are not.

 

[SmokeALib]

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

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.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The 2nd amendment is my authority.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

What? You're arguing that state and local governments should have the right to simply ignore the 2nd amendment?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was intended to restrain the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from violating the rights of the people and to limit its powers to what was authorized by the Constitution. It was never intended to restrict how the people would organize their affairs within the various states.

 

[SmokeALib]

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 .

The fail is you misunderstand how federalism works entirely. Red lights don't have to be listed to be constitutional. Welfare done at the federal level is because no authority to do so exists at that level.

They passed a welfare law . What's unconstitutional about that ?

Not unconstitutional. Just a foolish waste.