Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[Faun]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

 

[Conservative65]

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Interesting how when you are asked to apply your owns standards of hyperliteralism to the constitution.......you can't.

You can't show us anywhere in the constitution that the Executive is granted the authority to arrest anyone. Or enforce any law. Or incarcerate anyone. You can't show us anywhere in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted the authority to delegate their power to mint coins.

Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being articulated in the constitution.

Laughing....so much for hyperliteralism. Even you don't buy that bullshit. But keep ignoring the Federalist Papers and insisting that YOU know more about the Judicial Power than the Founders did.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

 

[Faun]

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Why do you refuse to answer.....?

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

 

[Conservative65]

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Interesting how when you are asked to apply your owns standards of hyperliteralism to the constitution.......you can't.

You can't show us anywhere in the constitution that the Executive is granted the authority to arrest anyone. Or enforce any law. Or incarcerate anyone. You can't show us anywhere in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted the authority to delegate their power to mint coins.

Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being articulated in the constitution.

Laughing....so much for hyperliteralism. Even you don't buy that bullshit. But keep ignoring the Federalist Papers and insisting that YOU know more about the Judicial Power than the Founders did.

I've already stated what needs to be said about the executive arresting people. I've already explained that "to faithfully execute" means enforce. If you're too stupid to get it, I nor anyone else can help you.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

 

[Conservative65]

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

 

[Conservative65]

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention. If you're too fucking stupid to get it, any money spent to educate you was yet another waste of funds by the taxpayers. You're easily manipulated by those that would have you be their puppet.

 

[Skylar]

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Interesting how when you are asked to apply your owns standards of hyperliteralism to the constitution.......you can't.

You can't show us anywhere in the constitution that the Executive is granted the authority to arrest anyone. Or enforce any law. Or incarcerate anyone. You can't show us anywhere in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted the authority to delegate their power to mint coins.

Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being articulated in the constitution.

Laughing....so much for hyperliteralism. Even you don't buy that bullshit. But keep ignoring the Federalist Papers and insisting that YOU know more about the Judicial Power than the Founders did.

I've already stated what needs to be said about the executive arresting people.

Oh, *you've* stated. But the constitution never does. And its the constitution you claimed to be quoting.

Instead, you quoted yourself.

And where is the authority to delegate the power to mint money in the Constitution? Hyperliteralism is your standard. You're stuck with it. Show us that power delegated to congress, or admit that per your own brain dead standards, Congress would have to mint coins itself.

Its one or the other. And we both know which you'll pick.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Why do you refuse to answer.....?

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Not the same thing. Nothing the founders wrote came anywhere close to saying they did.

 

[Conservative65]

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Interesting how when you are asked to apply your owns standards of hyperliteralism to the constitution.......you can't.

You can't show us anywhere in the constitution that the Executive is granted the authority to arrest anyone. Or enforce any law. Or incarcerate anyone. You can't show us anywhere in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted the authority to delegate their power to mint coins.

Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being articulated in the constitution.

Laughing....so much for hyperliteralism. Even you don't buy that bullshit. But keep ignoring the Federalist Papers and insisting that YOU know more about the Judicial Power than the Founders did.

I've already stated what needs to be said about the executive arresting people.

Oh, *you've* stated. But the constitution never does. And its the constitution you claimed to be quoting.

Instead, you quoted yourself.

And where is the authority to delegate the power to mint money in the Constitution? Hyperliteralism is your standard. You're stuck with it. Show us that power delegated to congress, or admit that per your own brain dead standards, Congress would have to mint coins itself.

Its one or the other. And we both know which you'll pick.

You really are that fucking stupid. That's what happens when two monkeys buttfuck and something that looks human comes out.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention.

You mentioned multiple times what you THINK it means. But the constitution makes no mention of arresting anyone. Or incarcerating anyone. Or enforcing any law.

You've interpreted all of those powers as being part of the Executive Power, despite any of them ever being explicitly cited by the Constitution. And in the process, wiped your ass with your own standards of hyperliteralism.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us where Congress is granted by the Constitution the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Laughing...keep running. I enjoy watching you demonstrate that even you don't believe your bullshit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There is absolutely ZERO chance that the Founders and Framers had the notion of a public dole in mind when they made any reference to "the General welfare."

Liberals try to take advantage of the fact that some words have a degree of ambiguity inherent in them.

Welfare has several meanings. In this day and age, "welfare" has taken on an aura of "the dole." Food stamps. Etc.

But back in the days of the founding of our Republic, "welfare" did not entail "hand outs." It just simply didn't.

 

[Conservative65]

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention.

You mentioned multiple times what you THINK it means. But the constitution makes no mention of arresting anyone. Or incarcerating anyone. Or enforcing any law.

You've interpreted all of those powers as being part of the Executive Power, despite any of them ever being explicitly cited by the Constitution. And in the process, wiped your ass with your own standards of hyperliteralism.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us where Congress is granted by the Constitution the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Laughing...keep running. I enjoy watching you demonstrate that even you don't believe your bullshit.

The Constitution says the executive is to execute the laws. That means enforce you dumbass. Read the definition.

 

[Faun]

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

 

[Skylar]

You didn't answer my question.... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

The word, "general," is rather vague and open ended.

Interesting how that open end means people like you believe it applies to one person that is honorable enough to support themselves should be forced to support a dishonorable person that isn't. Show me the words healthcare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. in the Constitution.

Interesting how when you are asked to apply your owns standards of hyperliteralism to the constitution.......you can't.

You can't show us anywhere in the constitution that the Executive is granted the authority to arrest anyone. Or enforce any law. Or incarcerate anyone. You can't show us anywhere in the constitution where the Legislative Branch is granted the authority to delegate their power to mint coins.

Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being articulated in the constitution.

Laughing....so much for hyperliteralism. Even you don't buy that bullshit. But keep ignoring the Federalist Papers and insisting that YOU know more about the Judicial Power than the Founders did.

I've already stated what needs to be said about the executive arresting people.

Oh, *you've* stated. But the constitution never does. And its the constitution you claimed to be quoting.

Instead, you quoted yourself.

And where is the authority to delegate the power to mint money in the Constitution? Hyperliteralism is your standard. You're stuck with it. Show us that power delegated to congress, or admit that per your own brain dead standards, Congress would have to mint coins itself.

Its one or the other. And we both know which you'll pick.

You really are that fucking stupid. That's what happens when two monkeys buttfuck and something that looks human comes out.

That's an ad hominem fallacy. Not a quote from the constitution citing where 'arrest', 'incarcerate' or 'enforce' is mentioned. And certainly not a quote showing us where in the constitution congress is granted the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Try again. This time quoting the constitution instead of silly fallacies of logic.