Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Conservative65]

Question:

If the Supreme Court ought not have the power of judicial review and the power to overturn unconstitutional laws,

what happens if a state or a city or a county or wherever, by law, bans all individual gun ownership?

First of all, the Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. Shows how little you know about the Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.

Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?

The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.

Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

 

[TNHarley]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

 

[The Derp]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

 

[Rustic]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

The nanny state helps no one...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.

Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

 

[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.

But a law that banned all handgun ownership would ban that.

How would you overturn such a law as unconstitutional if you took away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court?

 

[regent]

btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

Who has decided they are unconstitutional?

 

[dblack]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

The nanny state helps no one...

It helps nannies.

 

[Timmy]

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

Well then I definitely need to be educated. Please show me where in the Constitution that any authority is given the Supreme Court to strike down any law. Please cite the Article, section, and clause.

Read the fucking thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Conservative65]

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

Well then I definitely need to be educated. Please show me where in the Constitution that any authority is given the Supreme Court to strike down any law. Please cite the Article, section, and clause.

Read the fucking thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Not all that much in the scheme of things but ENOUGH.

If you knew the history of how the Air Force came about and an ounce of anything about the Constitution, you'd know the answer. It's simple.

Raising and Maintaining. Your argument that it doesn't foreign bases has everything to do with you not liking it than being unconstitutional. It's the same argument you lefties use when you complain about military spending. The Constitution specifically says Congress can support Armies and maintain the Navy. Not liking how much has nothing to do with whether or not it can happen.

I'm yet to see anything giving Congress the power to force one group of people, the contributors, to support the other group, the freeloaders. If the Constitution said "basic needs", "health", "housing", or the like, I'd agree with you but it doesn't. That means you use something so vague to reach the level you reach, the word fast is more easily defined than it and fast is a subjective term.

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

 

[Timmy]

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

Well then I definitely need to be educated. Please show me where in the Constitution that any authority is given the Supreme Court to strike down any law. Please cite the Article, section, and clause.

Read the fucking thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Not all that much in the scheme of things but ENOUGH.

If you knew the history of how the Air Force came about and an ounce of anything about the Constitution, you'd know the answer. It's simple.

Raising and Maintaining. Your argument that it doesn't foreign bases has everything to do with you not liking it than being unconstitutional. It's the same argument you lefties use when you complain about military spending. The Constitution specifically says Congress can support Armies and maintain the Navy. Not liking how much has nothing to do with whether or not it can happen.

I'm yet to see anything giving Congress the power to force one group of people, the contributors, to support the other group, the freeloaders. If the Constitution said "basic needs", "health", "housing", or the like, I'd agree with you but it doesn't. That means you use something so vague to reach the level you reach, the word fast is more easily defined than it and fast is a subjective term.

See, here's where you game play . On one hand you want the con to specifically say X for it to be constitutional. On the other hand you have no problem stretching the language when it suits you .

 

[dblack]

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this..;

You don't! Unless you employ Hamilton's exploit. Interesting, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

 

[SmokeALib]

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

What to fuck are you rambling on about? The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. I've read it. It's fairly simple to understand - even for a brainwashed leftist as yourself.

 

[Conservative65]

That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.

The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.

That is what the Supreme Court does.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

That is your INTERPRETATION.

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All

 

[Issa]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.