What The Left Would Have Us Surrender?

[NYcarbineer]

[




"It's really amusing how you talk about the Constitution as if the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist."

1. Au Contraire....
It is totally consistent with your serial prevarication that you pretend that the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


.

See what I highlighted. Do you know what that phrase means? Let me help you. It means that the states only get powers the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

Do you know what the means? It means that when federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or when Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or the recent upholding of same sex marriage rights

are enacted, the states have to comply.

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, given that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority on constitutionality.

There couldn't be a more definitive proof of your ignorance than this post.

Then tell us what federal governmental body rules on the constitutionality of Supreme Court decisions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OP we don't surrender to the left we kick their prissy asses.

When's the last time conservatives had a major legislative victory? When is the last time conservatives saw a major advance in their agenda?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[




"It's really amusing how you talk about the Constitution as if the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist."

1. Au Contraire....
It is totally consistent with your serial prevarication that you pretend that the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


.

See what I highlighted. Do you know what that phrase means? Let me help you. It means that the states only get powers the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

Do you know what the means? It means that when federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or when Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or the recent upholding of same sex marriage rights

are enacted, the states have to comply.

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

Cite the law used to charge a Supreme Court with making an illegal ruling.

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The personal attacks are evidence that you've hit the bulls eye (once again).

Considering PC's response to anyone who challenges her positions is ad hominem, it's not surprising. She says the most ridiculous things, uses the hasty generalizations fallacy to say ALL progressives are X. Then when she is challenged, instead of answering it fairly, she just insults.

She is literally Donald Trump. No substance, just hot air.

I notice you haven't challenged my positions....

...due to fear, or....wisdom?

Wisdom in the fact that there is no discussion to be had with you. Even when you are challenged and your premise is exposed, you just ad hominem your way out of it and the mouthbreathers on this board will say "Yeah! Go PC! You're so right! Libtards are stupid!"

See for example:

You make the claim that Socialism gives up our sovereignty as a nation, then comparing it to the EU. So if the EU is so powerful, why do all nations in the EU have their own separate governments?

"...if the EU is so powerful, why do all nations in the EU have their own separate governments?"


Take notes, I'm about to school you:

1. They don't have de jure governments.
a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.



2. Now....let's apply that to America:
a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.

b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
Rabkin, Op. Cit.


QED...."Libtards are stupid!"
(Your words, not mine.)



I'd love to see your response to this post.
(I don't promise not to smack you in the kisser.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

OP we don't surrender to the left we kick their prissy asses.

When's the last time conservatives had a major legislative victory? When is the last time conservatives saw a major advance in their agenda?

Where's my 'thank you'????

 

[PoliticalChic]

[




"It's really amusing how you talk about the Constitution as if the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist."

1. Au Contraire....
It is totally consistent with your serial prevarication that you pretend that the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


.

See what I highlighted. Do you know what that phrase means? Let me help you. It means that the states only get powers the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

Do you know what the means? It means that when federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or when Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or the recent upholding of same sex marriage rights

are enacted, the states have to comply.

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

Cite the law used to charge a Supreme Court with making an illegal ruling.

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

Post #88 describes what the states should be doing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our independence.


1. That applies both to our individual independence to the mandates of a government that orders collectivism....
....and our national independence, known as sovereignty.



2. Progressives, Liberals, statists have always opposed the freedom and individualism, principles on which this nation was founded. It was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label, and applying it to the Socialist Party, giving us the folks who claim 'Liberalism' today.

Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism.

a. “Once [WWI] is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.”
From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.”
Taking liberties

"....to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” And that is the very best definition of 'collectivization.'





3. On a national level, independence is called sovereignty.

" Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation,.... The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Declaration of Independence tells us why sovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?



4. Which of the 'shameful six' is based on personal independence, or on the sovereignty of our nation?
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, or Progressivism?

That's right....none of them.

The left care nothing about Liberty. What animates the left is equality. That's why they think Cuba has a great healthcare system. No one can get an aspirin equally so they think it's a wonderful system.

"The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager

Great minds think alike.

Wow, I thought LBJ was a war monger because of Vietnam. Are you saying you supported him?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OP we don't surrender to the left we kick their prissy asses.

When's the last time conservatives had a major legislative victory? When is the last time conservatives saw a major advance in their agenda?

Where's my 'thank you'????

You were wrong. I don't encourage stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

See what I highlighted. Do you know what that phrase means? Let me help you. It means that the states only get powers the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

Do you know what the means? It means that when federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or when Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or the recent upholding of same sex marriage rights

are enacted, the states have to comply.

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

Cite the law used to charge a Supreme Court with making an illegal ruling.

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

Post #88 describes what the states should be doing.

So the states should bring back Jim Crow and ignore federal law?

btw, we found out what the states shouldn't be doing with the Kim Davis affair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The personal attacks are evidence that you've hit the bulls eye (once again).

Considering PC's response to anyone who challenges her positions is ad hominem, it's not surprising. She says the most ridiculous things, uses the hasty generalizations fallacy to say ALL progressives are X. Then when she is challenged, instead of answering it fairly, she just insults.

She is literally Donald Trump. No substance, just hot air.

I notice you haven't challenged my positions....

...due to fear, or....wisdom?

Wisdom in the fact that there is no discussion to be had with you. Even when you are challenged and your premise is exposed, you just ad hominem your way out of it and the mouthbreathers on this board will say "Yeah! Go PC! You're so right! Libtards are stupid!"

See for example:

You make the claim that Socialism gives up our sovereignty as a nation, then comparing it to the EU. So if the EU is so powerful, why do all nations in the EU have their own separate governments?

Post #104 certainly seems to have silenced you.

It must have been awesome, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[




"It's really amusing how you talk about the Constitution as if the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist."

1. Au Contraire....
It is totally consistent with your serial prevarication that you pretend that the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


.

See what I highlighted. Do you know what that phrase means? Let me help you. It means that the states only get powers the Constitution doesn't prohibit.

Do you know what the means? It means that when federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or when Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or the recent upholding of same sex marriage rights

are enacted, the states have to comply.

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, given that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority on constitutionality.

There couldn't be a more definitive proof of your ignorance than this post.

Then tell us what federal governmental body rules on the constitutionality of Supreme Court decisions.

If the weather report says clear and sunny, and it is actually pouring like cats and dogs....
....who would have the ability to rule the report incorrect?


Take your time....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our independence.


1. That applies both to our individual independence to the mandates of a government that orders collectivism....
....and our national independence, known as sovereignty.



2. Progressives, Liberals, statists have always opposed the freedom and individualism, principles on which this nation was founded. It was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label, and applying it to the Socialist Party, giving us the folks who claim 'Liberalism' today.

Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism.

a. “Once [WWI] is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.”
From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.”
Taking liberties

"....to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” And that is the very best definition of 'collectivization.'





3. On a national level, independence is called sovereignty.

" Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation,.... The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton, “we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.”

The Declaration of Independence tells us why sovereignty mattered to America’s Founders.

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?



4. Which of the 'shameful six' is based on personal independence, or on the sovereignty of our nation?
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, or Progressivism?

That's right....none of them.

The left care nothing about Liberty. What animates the left is equality. That's why they think Cuba has a great healthcare system. No one can get an aspirin equally so they think it's a wonderful system.

"The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager

Great minds think alike.

Wow, I thought LBJ was a war monger because of Vietnam. Are you saying you supported him?

"Are you saying ...."

I speak several languages.....
....don't you even speak English?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

OP we don't surrender to the left we kick their prissy asses.

When's the last time conservatives had a major legislative victory? When is the last time conservatives saw a major advance in their agenda?

Where's my 'thank you'????

You were wrong. I don't encourage stupidity.

1. I'm never wrong.

2. You personify stupidity....and reek of...something.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course not.

It simply means that a number of Supreme Court decisions have been illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's occupation by unconstitutional forces goes as far back as John Marshall.

You know that....you are simply willing to lie about it based on this:

"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything."
Coulter

Cite the law used to charge a Supreme Court with making an illegal ruling.

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

Post #88 describes what the states should be doing.

So the states should bring back Jim Crow and ignore federal law?

btw, we found out what the states shouldn't be doing with the Kim Davis affair.

Where does "So..." come in?

Were you conversing with those voices in your head again?


And....let's remember, Jim Crow was Democrat big government in action.
Good thing the Republicans threw them out of office, huh?

 

[ZackB]

OP we don't surrender to the left we kick their prissy asses.

When's the last time conservatives had a major legislative victory? When is the last time conservatives saw a major advance in their agenda?

Where's my 'thank you'????

You were wrong. I don't encourage stupidity.

1. I'm never wrong.

2. You personify stupidity....and reek of...something.

You can assert that you are never wrong, but you cannot deny that you are always Wong!

 

[ZackB]

"I am never wrong". PC Wong

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cite the law used to charge a Supreme Court with making an illegal ruling.

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

Post #88 describes what the states should be doing.

So the states should bring back Jim Crow and ignore federal law?

btw, we found out what the states shouldn't be doing with the Kim Davis affair.

Where does "So..." come in?

Were you conversing with those voices in your head again?


And....let's remember, Jim Crow was Democrat big government in action.
Good thing the Republicans threw them out of office, huh?

Jim Crow was a states rights action as well as free market action -

two of the cornerstones of Conservatism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When are you going to get around to thanking me for teaching you what federalism is....post #88????

Federalism is defined by the Supremacy Clause, which, quite simply, prohibits the states from doing anything contrary to the federal government.

Post #88 describes what the states should be doing.

So the states should bring back Jim Crow and ignore federal law?

btw, we found out what the states shouldn't be doing with the Kim Davis affair.

Where does "So..." come in?

Were you conversing with those voices in your head again?


And....let's remember, Jim Crow was Democrat big government in action.
Good thing the Republicans threw them out of office, huh?

Jim Crow was a states rights action as well as free market action -

two of the cornerstones of Conservatism.

"Jim Crow was a states rights action" but only if said state was run by big government Democrats.


Case in point:

1. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The latest bauble is news that the whole fate of Europe may turn on a teakettle. This is because the regulators in Brussels have been hatching plans to, as the Financial Times puts it, “limit the use of high-powered kettles and toasters.”

... the daffy dirigistes [central authority in Brussels] are suddenly fearing that....they are shelving their plans to wreck the British breakfast. We had the Boston Tea Party. The British have this. A tempest in a teapot over the European Nanny State, which — not to put too fine a point on it — makes Mike Bloomberg look like Rand Paul.

....if Britain stays within the European Union there’s not a chance that it will leave Britain’s teakettles and toasters alone. This is what Brussels does. It looks for opportunities to control people’s lives.


One of the complaints of our own revolutionaries — enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — was that George III had created a multitude of offices and “sent hither” what the Declaration’s authors called “swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Less than three years before, Americans had protested by dumping British tea in Boston’s harbor. How fitting that it’s come all the way back around to the kettle."
Breakfast and the Brexit - The New York Sun



Obama, the Democrats, the European Union, bureaucrats, experts, totalitarians...
....it's all about sovereignty.

 

[Kondor3]

Left and Right are both full of shit, clean up to their ears.