- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 71,681
- Reaction score
- 58,064
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What a hypocrite. Pppfffttttt....
No need to make my point again Southernman, once is fine. Please, lets stick to the topic.
What a hypocrite. Pppfffttttt....
Then refute it.
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
Now you want to stick to the topic. How ironic.No need to make my point again Southernman, once is fine. Please, lets stick to the topic.
What's a libtard?
Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.
In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).
in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.
Now you want to stick to the topic. How ironic.
Meg.
True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.
This would be an example LiberalAvenger. Notice that nothing of substance was added to the thread, however an opinion was given.
No liberal has called the constitution a "living breathing" document in this thread. It's about whether or not SCOTUS can make unconstitutional rulings.
Toss the ball so I can hit it, out of the park.
What's a libtard?
Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.
In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).
in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.
It's been tossed. Instead of saying you can hit it out of th epark, take a swing at it. Otherwise you'll keep watching them go down the center of the plate.
Provide a quote, in context.
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
Easy:
No less comprehensive than plenary and indefinite.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
Tom Paine made one of the best arguments about the constitution being a "living document" He said that if it was not a living document then we would be cursed with rule by the dead (words to that effect.
Debate: Is the US Constitution a living document, which should change over time? - Helium
Looking over my copy I don't see Paine's signature....Tom Paine made one of the best arguments about the constitution being a "living document" He said that if it was not a living document then we would be cursed with rule by the dead (words to that effect...
Easier:
Home run.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare.
:lol:
What do you think that means, exactly? Cause I believe you didn't even escape the in-field on that swing.
an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
Grand slam. :lol:
To put it even more simply, Congress can't give you money unless they give money to everyone.
Hamilton was arguing authority to spend money on a federal agency to study agriculture; something that would benefit everyone.
False. Look up the word "possibility", and then apply that to "It's operation extending by fact, or by possibility, through out the union."
False.
He was arguing for congress havign the authority to perform actions that extended beyond the ennumerated powers.
Essentially he was arguing the exact opposite of what MAdison wrote in Federalist #41.
No matter how much you hope and wish that general welfare means whatever you want it to mean, Hamilton wasn't arguing for unchecked federal power.