You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Starting a new thread with this... JLow brings up an interesting take...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me...
And such is the nature of our political system... so what's your point?
Some of us support agendas that help some people socially, at the risk of maybe some financial pain for others (and of course some abuse of the process)... while others support agendas that that help people who are already financially independent while all but ensuring those that aren't are continually indebted to them. (And there's still that abuse of the system to worry about.)
If it wasn't a leftist political agenda, it would be a rightist political agenda.
Go start your revolution if you want to change something... let us know how that works out for ya.
To which LowJ replied:
Quote:
Problem is that the leftist agenda is inconsistent with the constitution and the founding principles of this nation. Bad businesses can be dealt with...we can choose to stop using them and burn down their businesses if needed. Bad governments are much harder to get rid of and that is why the leftist agenda has always and will continue to fail.
So lets see if we can have a rational discussion about this, cause it has certainly peaked my curiosity. The following post is the text of the constitution where it spells out the powers and restrictions of the Congress...
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
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;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Quote:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Someone who's more versed in Constitutional deciphering is going to have to show me where our government under a liberal administration is doing anything unconstitutional.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Low J I think you're confusing rights with entitlements. A right is a protection from government, and since the federal government isn't forcefully preventing anyone from receiving healthcare... it seems we already have the right to healthcare.
Obviously the healthcare debate is over an entitlement to healthcare... not the right to healthcare.
__________________
Our forefathers made one mistake. What they should have fought for was representation without taxation. Fletcher Knebel
Healthcare, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are not in the constitution....things not enumerated in the constitution are then deferred to the states then the people. Wealth redistribution at the federal level is unconstitutional. Denial of property rights due to radical environmentalism and confiscatory taxation are unconstitutional.
So what happens if the states drop the ball and Americans suffer? Is it not then the government's responsibility to protect those Americans?
I don't disagree that some programs have taken things too far, but to completely label them as unconstitutional is false. It might be easy for you to say "let them suffer", but for many American's its not.
Quote:
Fundamentally, the liberal ideology dictates that a person is not entitled to their own property nor the fruits of their own labor and that is why it is fundamentally flawed and violates the constitution on so many levels.
You are so wrong about this on so many levels... but regardless of how you view liberal ideology...
Again... please show me where it says anywhere that the constitution is meant to be interpreted literally. Do you not agree that the founders, and authors of the document intended it to be a dynamic document that adapted itself to a changing nation? Do you not agree that by "reserved to the states" the founders meant the states had the right to do those things, but would also have the right to let the government do it as well (assuming a majority vote by the congress)?
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Healthcare, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are not in the constitution....things not enumerated in the constitution are then deferred to the states then the people. Wealth redistribution at the federal level is unconstitutional. Denial of property rights due to radical environmentalism and confiscatory taxation are unconstitutional.
Fundamentally, the liberal ideology dictates that a person is not entitled to their own property nor the fruits of their own labor and that is why it is fundamentally flawed and violates the constitution on so many levels.
Unfortunately, this is pure opinion, and your opinion is incorrect.
Taxing & spending for the general welfare is specifically allowed under the Constitution. See Article 1, section 8. It's not a constitutional issue--it's a political issue.
And of course disarming of citizens is unconstitutional.
Of course it is, I've never heard someone say that is not. (I'm sure many have, but they don't have a leg to stand on.) ... now... regulating what types of firearms, or the number of hoops one has to go through to own them in order to protect Americans and law enforcement is completely constitutional.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Of course it is, I've never heard someone say that is not. (I'm sure many have, but they don't have a leg to stand on.) ... now... regulating what types of firearms, or the number of hoops one has to go through to own them in order to protect Americans and law enforcement is completely constitutional.
And as they regulate certain types of firearms they then start to regulate more firearms and so on and so on until there are no more firearms allowed. Of course, that would never happen.
And as they regulate certain types of firearms they then start to regulate more firearms and so on and so on until there are no more firearms allowed. Of course, that would never happen.
So wait, felons should be allowed firearms then right?
__________________ Gun Totin' Liberals: Left of Center But Always on Target
And as they regulate certain types of firearms they then start to regulate more firearms and so on and so on until there are no more firearms allowed. Of course, that would never happen.
You're right, it shouldn't happen ... unless its the will of the people. I'm not telling anyone not to fight regulation, but fight it by voting your people into office, not by calling the opposition, who are JUST as American as any one of you, broad labels and generalizations
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
The America that liberals want and the one that our forefathers founded are fairly incompatible. Our leadership right now is raping our pocketbooks, saddling with us with unprecedented debt, destroying capitalism, and trying to push entire segments of our economy out of business. That's as anti-American as you can get.
as anti-American as the Patriot Act, correct? legislated not by the liberals...
Roe v. Wade, women's right to choose, criticized by conservatives...
The knife cuts both ways
__________________
"If you ain't first, you're last!"
Roe v. Wade, women's right to choose, criticized by conservatives...
I support Roe vs. Wade but I don't think Conservatives disagree with a woman's right to choose as much as they disagree with a human being denied the right to life.
You are aware that our president represented a state where guns were banned right???
You're going to have to show me something to back this up... I find nothing to indicate that Illinois banned all guns... maybe an assult rifle ban, a supposed (but apparently heavily debunked) call to ban handguns... but nothing else. Please inform me.
Quote:
He has publicly supported gun bans and has committed to renewing the assault weapons ban. Liberals have waged a global campaign for decades to ban guns and they are doing the same here. On the whole, liberalism is for banishment of weapons in violation of our constitution. You'd be nuts to dispute this.
Then I must be Nuckin Futs cause here ya go!!
You're taking false information and jumping off a cliff with it!!!
Regarding a Constitutional right to guns, Obama says:
Obama, "Sportsmen": Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.
On the issue of urban policy, Obama says he favors "commonsense measures" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that he would bring back the expired "assault weapon" ban and make it permanent:
Obama, "Urban Policy": Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Regulating and even banning certain types of firearms or ammunition is NOT usurping the Second Amendment. You'd be NUTS to dispute this.
__________________ Stacy King (I'm a guy dammit!!) - Owner - Asphalt Ventures
Is liberalism unconstitutional?
