One LARGE order of S-HOLE coming right up!

[printcraft]

 

[Tombs]

If you say so. I'm not going to needless argue over something that is obvious fact.

B...but they totally intended for us to just repeal all of this and go wild guys!

[h=3]Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress[/h][FONT=&quot]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;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To borrow money on the credit of the United States;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To provide and maintain a Navy;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Then they would be wrong to the point of insanity (but I repeat myself, they are leftists). Respecting our history and constitution and wanting to keep it does not equal wanting to change it to look like the USSR/ChiComs. These are diametrically opposed, one can only view it as the same through the current blackout glasses of 'self identification'. As in: I self identify as an American Patriot therefore I want to change America so I feel like a patriot and persecute those who are currently identified as patriots.

And they feel the same, except change USSR/ChiCom and perhaps replace it with Somalia which is what they think repubs want the US to be, guns everywhere and no regulation. You view it through your glasses and they view it through theirs.

One side believes in a "living constitution" that changes to suit the government's needs, the other side believes in the constitution being a law that protects the fundamental rights of the people from the government.

After reading the federalist papers, there's only one side that has any basis in understanding our country or our founder's intent, and it's as far from the democratic party as it gets.

This "both sides have good intentions!" meme needs to end. If you think democrats(or neocons for that matter) even remotely like this country, you need to see a psychiatrist.

We have a living Constitution, the methods for it to grow and change are laid out in that document, do you disagree? They believe in different rights than you or I. Heck from the Constitution it can be argued that the founders intended for the people to own slaves, women not to have the right to vote, and a host of other things that I'd say most find repugnant today.

Some on both sides have good intentions, in some cases they are wrong, and IMO that applies to both sides as well. Some on both sides don't.

Does the same hold true for the President's broad constitutional authority over immigration? Good to know, but the only "others" that people in disagreement seem to be trying to persuade to remove/alter it are activist judges. All I see in the Constitution, however, is for the judicial branch to rule on the constitutionality of executive actions or laws created by the legislature; not tell the other branches how to act. How do you suppose it would play out for the open borders clan to attempt to amend the Constitution to achieve their desires? Perhaps they should be booking their airline reservations

Can you show me where in the Constitution the President has authority over Immigration? I can show you where Congress does, but I may have missed where the President does. Can you show me where in the Constitution it grants authority to the judicial branch to rule on the Constitutionality of EOs or laws created by the legislature? I can find where it may possibly be inferred but not explicitly granted, it's quite possible they simply seized that power and if so how can it be disputed without a Constitutional amendment, or methods we can't talk about here.

 

[Tombs]

We have a living Constitution, the methods for it to grow and change are laid out in that document, do you disagree? They believe in different rights than you or I. Heck from the Constitution it can be argued and

As it clearly states, rights are bestowed by our creator; the constitution protects the people from the government. The constitution does not grant any right nor does it proclaim to.

The 9th amendment is a recognition that not all rights can easily be labeled and inserted as an amendment; that they are countless.

Should the need arise to stop government infringement on a right that is not expressly documented, the means were provided so that we may amend it in.

To say that we should believe they intended for us to remove our most fundamental rights is ignoring the spirit and message conveyed in the federalist papers and the declaration of independence.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Can you show me where in the Constitution the President has authority over Immigration? I can show you where Congress does, but I may have missed where the President does. Can you show me where in the Constitution it grants authority to the judicial branch to rule on the Constitutionality of EOs or laws created by the legislature? I can find where it may possibly be inferred but not explicitly granted, it's quite possible they simply seized that power and if so how can it be disputed without a Constitutional amendment, or methods we can't talk about here.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]That boils down to supreme court cases giving such precedents. It does have to be inferred as it is not explicitly stated.

Under other laws though, it most certainly is expressly stated.[/FONT]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

B...but they totally intended for us to just repeal all of this and go wild guys!

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Maybe not, but they made sure to put in that ability didn't they?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Tombs]

Maybe not, but they made sure to put in that ability didn't they?

I see nothing in there stating removal of amendments. I only see the addition of amendments.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see nothing in there stating removal of amendments. I only see the addition of amendments.

Hint:

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I see nothing in there stating removal of amendments. I only see the addition of amendments.

And can those amendments negate other amendments? Or change/negate other portions of the original Constitution?

Hint:

Pretty much.

 

[Tombs]

And can those amendments negate other amendments? Or change/negate other portions of the original Constitution?



Pretty much.

And what is the precedent for taking away a right bestowed by our creator, and recognized in our constitution? Where in our history has that been done?

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
Can you show me where in the Constitution the President has authority over Immigration? I can show you where Congress does, but I may have missed where the President does. Can you show me where in the Constitution it grants authority to the judicial branch to rule on the Constitutionality of EOs or laws created by the legislature? I can find where it may possibly be inferred but not explicitly granted, it's quite possible they simply seized that power and if so how can it be disputed without a Constitutional amendment, or methods we can't talk about here.

I can show you where congress delegated it's authority in those matters to the executive in 1952, passed initially by both houses and implemented by override of a presidential veto as well as upheld by subsequent SCOTUS decisions. That gives the president constitutional authority, as it was implemented according to the mechanisms laid out by the constitution.

All I see in the Constitution, however, is for the judicial branch to rule on the constitutionality of executive actions or laws created by the legislature; not tell the other branches how to act.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

As it clearly states, rights are bestowed by our creator; the constitution protects the people from the government. The constitution does not grant any right nor does it proclaim to.

The 9th amendment is a recognition that not all rights can easily be labeled and inserted as an amendment; that they are countless.

Should the need arise to stop government infringement on a right that is not expressly documented, the means were provided so that we may amend it in.

To say that we should believe they intended for us to remove our most fundamental rights is ignoring the spirit and message conveyed in the federalist papers and the declaration of independence.




That boils down to supreme court cases giving such precedents. It does have to be inferred as it is not explicitly stated.

Under other laws though, it most certainly is expressly stated.

Where does the Constitution clearly state that rights are bestowed by our Creator? Perhaps you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence?

If the Amendment process wasn't, why didn't they put in safeguards? I do actually see one safeguard in that the amendment process does include, " and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." But couldn't they simply amend that out, and then deprive a state(s) of their equal Suffrage?

Intended? Doesn't matter, the process is there. And why would it need to be amended to include rights that are under the 9th? Shouldn't the 9th be enough?

So the court gave itself the power, doesn't that seem to you to be a bit of a power grab? Can you show me where in the enumerated powers of Congress they have the authority to pass laws that provide for that?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And what is the precedent for taking away a right bestowed by our creator, and recognized in our constitution? Where in our history has that been done?

Where was the precedent of the court granting itself the power to find legislation unConstitutional? Nothing has precedence until it's done.

I can show you where congress delegated it's authority in those matters to the executive in 1952, passed initially by both houses and implemented by override of a presidential veto as well as upheld by subsequent SCOTUS decisions. That gives the president constitutional authority, as it was implemented according to the mechanisms laid out by the constitution.

So it's not his constitutional power, it's power that has been granted him by the legislature, that doesn't mean it's his constitutional power. It's the constitutional power of Congress that they delegated to him. Slight difference.

 

[Tombs]

Where was the precedent of the court granting itself the power to find legislation unConstitutional? Nothing has precedence until it's done.

It's a necessity of a civilian elected government, that a higher body needs to apply checks and balances of the constitution against their legislation.

I don't see that as a problem, if anything it's a preventative measure to reduce the risk of the constitution being completely abolished.

Where does the Constitution clearly state that rights are bestowed by our Creator? Perhaps you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence?

If the Amendment process wasn't, why didn't they put in safeguards? I do actually see one safeguard in that the amendment process does include, " and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." But couldn't they simply amend that out, and then deprive a state(s) of their equal Suffrage?

Intended? Doesn't matter, the process is there. And why would it need to be amended to include rights that are under the 9th? Shouldn't the 9th be enough?

So the court gave itself the power, doesn't that seem to you to be a bit of a power grab? Can you show me where in the enumerated powers of Congress they have the authority to pass laws that provide for that?

Where does the constitution say rights come from? It most certainly doesn't say or infer that they come from government. Since it doesn't specifically say, it's necessary to cross reference the document with the writer's other works. A right fundamentally can't come from an organization designed to take away rights to serve its own interests, it can only be stopped from taking that right away. If we were to say rights come from government, then rights are just privileges that exist only as long as a majority doesn't wish to suppress a minority. The source of rights is important, as it's how we can check whether something is eligible as a right or as simply a benefit of government. Health care for instance can't be a right, as it depends on others' labor, as well as not being something you would have in nature. It has to come from government, it would not exist in absence.

Why does it need amended to include other rights specifically? As we both know, unless something is written in stone, people will try to take it away, as they only respect rights that are legislated into existence.

As for the last statement, I just addressed it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It's a necessity of a civilian elected government, that a higher body needs to apply checks and balances of the constitution against their legislation.

I don't see that as a problem, if anything it's a preventative measure to reduce the risk of the constitution being completely abolished.



Where does the constitution say rights come from? It most certainly doesn't say or infer that they come from government. Since it doesn't specifically say, it's necessary to cross reference the document with the writer's other works. A right fundamentally can't come from an organization designed to take away rights to serve its own interests, it can only be stopped from taking that right away. If we were to say rights come from government, then rights are just privileges that exist only as long as a majority doesn't wish to suppress a minority. The source of rights is important, as it's how we can check whether something is eligible as a right or as simply a benefit of government. Health care for instance can't be a right, as it depends on others' labor, as well as not being something you would have in nature. It has to come from government, it would not exist in absence.

Why does it need amended to include other rights specifically? As we both know, unless something is written in stone, people will try to take it away, as they only respect rights that are legislated into existence.

As for the last statement, I just addressed it.

You say it is a necessity, and it may be one. But taking power not authorized and acting outside there constitutional authority, isn't that what activist judges do? And you're okay with it, as long as it's something you agree with? I also thought they were supposed to be generally equal, with no one reigning supreme?

And it doesn't answer the point I was making with that statement, you asked where the precedent was, there is no precedent until it's done.

The Constitution doesn't say. But you said it did.

As it clearly states, rights are bestowed by our creator; the constitution protects the people from the government. The constitution does not grant any right nor does it proclaim to.

It's okay to admit you "misspoke". While I may agree with you on the source of rights, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution doesn't address that matter.

So you expect the govt to legislate rights to protect you from the govt?

 

[Tombs]

You say it is a necessity, and it may be one. But taking power not authorized and acting outside there constitutional authority, isn't that what activist judges do? I also thought they were supposed to be generally equal, with no one reigning supreme?

The Constitution doesn't say. But you said it did.

It's okay to admit you "misspoke". While I may agree with you on the source of rights, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution doesn't address that matter.

So you expect the govt to legislate rights to protect you from the govt?

The court is a check and balance on legislation, it is not supposed to legislate from the bench, and I have no idea how they get away with doing as such.

The government has voted to restrict their own power before, 21st amendment immediately springs to mind. So yes, it can protect you from its self through legislation. It's just absurdly rare that it ever actually happens.

 

[churchmouse]

This has gotten interesting.

Issue I see is the court making law from the bench. Seems to be done all to often.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The court is a check and balance on legislation, it is not supposed to legislate from the bench, and I have no idea how they get away with doing as such.

The government has voted to restrict their own power before, 21st amendment immediately springs to mind. So yes, it can protect you from its self through legislation. It's just absurdly rare that it ever actually happens.

Yes that is how it currently works, but there is nothing in the Constitution granting them that authority, they simply seized it. Isn't acting outside their authority was activist judges do?

Eh the 21st is iffy, they didn't give up the power to control alcohol, just rescinded a complete ban. How about the 16th, and stripping power from the states with the 17th?

 

[Kutnupe14]

This has gotten interesting.

Issue I see is the court making law from the bench. Seems to be done all to often.

And all because the guy whose name begins with "T" doesn't understand the Constitution. Lol.

 

[BugI02]

Where was the precedent of the court granting itself the power to find legislation unConstitutional? Nothing has precedence until it's done.



So it's not his constitutional power, it's power that has been granted him by the legislature, that doesn't mean it's his constitutional power. It's the constitutional power of Congress that they delegated to him. Slight difference.

Point taken, and I'll concede more than a slight difference. I was caught up more in the argument whether the president's use of the essentially plenary authority delegated was constitutional

 

[churchmouse]

And all because the guy whose name begins with "T" doesn't understand the Constitution. Lol.

No. That aside this has been happening for a long time. Under "O" the SC found it constitutional to press us into a contract. Remember that. That is a load of HHS if there ever was any. "T" might be somewhat buffoonish but "O" and his ilk used the system to get what the wanted. Across the board.
Not going to start a diff. discussion here but the courts and alphabet agency's are the lefts go to when the legislative branch fails them.