What kind of government do you want?

[OKTexas]

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

 

[Slade3200]

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

 

[OKTexas]

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

 

[Slade3200]

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

 

[Pete7469]

...There is an essential element that our government plays, which is to stand up to the rich/powerful and provide voice and opportunity for the "little guy"

Standing up to the rich/powerful is not an essential element of our form of government - Lady Justice was never intended to be a social/redistributive warrior. Equal justice under the law is the promise. Opportunity is 'provided' by way of not restricting opportunity through class or quota. And, yes, there are protections in place regarding wages, prices and fair practices - however some claim they are draconian, and others that they are only as good as the enforcement of them.

The rich have no enforcement arm - only the government does...and blaming our ills on the rich allows those holding the reins of government to remain unaccountable.

I'm not as concerned about a politician with a 'For Sale' sign on his forehead as I am great groups of voters willingly selling their votes for the promise of 'bread and circuses'.

With that said... Our current system has too much money in politics and too much corruption in our government which needs to be addressed

The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.

You make good points. The moonbats enter the conversation from a position of hate and envy. They wish to use the state to steal from "the rich" (not the jews this time) and redistribute the money they way regressives see fit. They believe that the "rich" are exclusively represented by the GOP, and that democrooks are just "trying to make things 'fair' ". That's complete bullshit, but they will flat line a polygraph if they're in the chair.

The problem is that the same "rich" billionaires who fund the democrook party and enough of the republicrat party own the government by means of campaign cash to fund these idiotic pagents we call "elections". Of course they don't "pay their fair share" because they use the government to keep the dependents in line for as little as possible. Socialism always has to be funded by someone. If you doubt for one second the ultra rich elitist sociopaths of the world wouldn't LOVE a global communist collective that keeps them above a system in which the human resource is controlled from cradle to grave like cattle you're delusional.

Repeal the 17th Amendment so that state legislatures pick the senators like they used to and reduce the power of the feds so that there's nothing for them to sell. They should not be dictating from DC on every transaction that takes place. It's out of control and needs to be reigned in.

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

 

[Slade3200]

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

 

[Doc1]

I want a Constitutional Government, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[OKTexas]

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

I want the US to be more like a social democracy.

So Venezuela. Good fucking choice moron.

Venezuela is a federal republic you dumb sack of shit. You know what other nation is a federal republic? I'll give you one guess.

The stupidity of this forum knows no bounds.

 

[Billy000]

The past decade has brought partisanship and federal gridlock to record levels. The obstructionism from the Right during Obamas administration was childish and embarrassing. The response by Harry Reid using the "nuclear option" planted a virus, and the use of executive orders by Obama only created band aids to problems that needed legislative fixes. Now that Republicans have control they seem to be picking up the Democrats ball and running with it, how very hypocritical, after years of complaining. They have applied the nuclear option to a Supreme court nominee and Trump seems to be focusing on executive orders over legislation. I don't see any attempts by either side to work together towards solutions. So what kind of government are we left with?

Looks to me like our Congress is moving towards majority rule operations eliminating the need for bipartisan efforts. Our executive doesn't seem interested in representing the will of the people but only the half that supported him. Is this really the type of government that you want? You know this tit for tat partisanship is only going to snowball as the balance of power shifts... Are any of you interested in seeing this trend stop? Any ideas on how to fix it?

I want the US to be more like a social democracy.

So Venezuela. Good fucking choice moron.

Venezuela is a federal republic you dumb sack of shit. You know what other nation is a federal republic? I'll give you one guess.

The stupidity of this forum knows no bounds.

I'm glad you agree!

 

[yiostheoy]

More free alcohol and drinks all around !!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

Yes, it is. Because there is no government-imposed penalty for being misled about the function and purpose of our federal government.

Again - since you brought up the issue of 'being free'...what do you desire to do that are you not free to do?

Listen, in China people are free to go about their daily lives. The things they can't do, most Chinese people don't want to do anyway. But you wouldn't call them free, would you?

 

[yiostheoy]

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

Yes, it is. Because there is no government-imposed penalty for being misled about the function and purpose of our federal government.

Again - since you brought up the issue of 'being free'...what do you desire to do that are you not free to do?

Listen, in China people are free to go about their daily lives. The things they can't do, most Chinese people don't want to do anyway. But you wouldn't call them free, would you?

If they cannot carry a gun then they are definitely not free.

But this also applies to California, DC, Hawaii, NYC, NYS, NJ, Md, Mass, etc.

 

[Slade3200]

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

 

[yiostheoy]

They have every authority to regulate interstate and international flights, they have no more right to regulate the air space over the States than they do the ground below it without the consent of the States.

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

 

[Slade3200]

Where in the constitution does it giver them the authority to regulate interstate and international flights?

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

Why are you picking on the FAA ??

Can't get a pilot's license ??

Im not picking on the FAA, I'm picking on OKTexas who is trying to make the point that any laws/regulations imposed by the federal government that aren't specifically addressed in the constitution are unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to realize that society has evolved quite a bit since the 1700's

What and who evolved?


jfk man on the moon obama man in bathrooms - Google Search:

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem isn't necessarily what you're not allowed to do, it's the fact that it's set up to screw you over. How much do you pay for a military to do the bidding of the rich? How many freedoms are going because of this? How much do you have to pay for healthcare? You could get health insurance for like $120 a month that would get you full health coverage in any country in the world except the US and Canada. Oh, great. But in the US it'll cost you 5 times or more than that to get the same thing.

Is that "least restrictive environment"?

Yes, it is. Because there is no government-imposed penalty for being misled about the function and purpose of our federal government.

Again - since you brought up the issue of 'being free'...what do you desire to do that are you not free to do?

Listen, in China people are free to go about their daily lives. The things they can't do, most Chinese people don't want to do anyway. But you wouldn't call them free, would you?

If they cannot carry a gun then they are definitely not free.

But this also applies to California, DC, Hawaii, NYC, NYS, NJ, Md, Mass, etc.

So you think having a gun is freedom? Whatever. You're wrong, but you're free to think this and to say this.

 

[OKTexas]

Is that not intersate and international commerce?

It is not. Commerce is the buying and selling of goods. Commerce is involved in a part of air travel but there is a ton of air travel that does not involve commerce.

Commerce is the buying and selling of goods and services, not just goods. And you're right, there's a lot of air travel that involves neither or ever crosses State or international boundaries.

So would you say that the FAA is unconstitutional? How would you like to see it handled?

I've already told you the remedy, you just refuse to listen.

I've been listening, you just aren't thinking it through in practical terms and you are failing to make your argument.

You keep saying that and have yet to back up anything you've said with the text of the Constitution, I can back up everything I've said with it. BTW it's the Constitution that defines the "practical terms", not the idiots that are ignoring their oaths to it.