Yeah, its telling that I put more stock on the people's perspective that actually lived through that time when FDR helped the economy (and reelected him 3 times in gratitude), than I do on revisionist spin.
Refresh my memory: Which nation gave arms to Iraq to fight against Iran in the 80's?
Hmm, started earlier than I thought, little wonder then SS is in trouble.
"you first have to understand that the government has been robbing the Social Security trust for years--that is, spending Social Security tax proceeds on the rest of the budget, to the tune of about $200 billion a year. So although Social Security now enjoys a theoretical surplus of $2.5 trillion, what it really possesses is that amount in IOUs."
Can you shoot me a link to the section in the constitution that makes the US responsible for global security?
if you can counter any of the facts i posted i would love to see them.
oh i do. i understand quite clearly; that's why i'm one of the few people who actually advocate saving it via privatization rather than letting it destroy itself and us in the process.
i will do that as soon as you shoot me the link to the section where the US is responsible for controlling healthcare, subsidizing retirement, fixing prices, or ANY part of the New Deal.
Certainly ~ "To Provide for the General Welfare" - Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court still today.
By the rule of law, they are in fact in keeping with the Constitution.
And providing national security is, also, in the interest of the General Welfare.
Reading that as liberals do it warrants the government providing nearly everything.:lol:Certainly ~ "To Provide for the General Welfare" - Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court still today.
Reading that as liberals do it warrants the government providing nearly everything.:lol:
But when read within the context of the document it is a part of it warrants far less and certainly not forcing one tax payer to pay for the health care services of another and dictating to doctors what they can charge for their services.
Oh, you mean like as in Scot v. Sanford.I really appreciate your interpretation of the Constitution Scummy, but I will go with the rule of law, which makes the Supreme Court the official entity to interpret whether something is allowed under the Constitution.
Again, I am all for maintaining a defensive force.
Oh, you mean like as in Scot v. Sanford.
Thanks for your efforts, but I think I will stick with the position taken both by historians and the people that lived during that period, which I have already documented in this thread.
That idea has not been brought up much since everyone would have lost most of their retirement in the stock market crash. But you go for it!
Or, we could lock the funds so they cannot be borrowed against as Al Gore suggested in 2000.
You know when we decided to elect the cowboy instead, who doubled the national debt.
Certainly ~ "To Provide for the General Welfare" - Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court still today.
By the rule of law, they are in fact in keeping with the Constitution.
I really appreciate your interpretation of the Constitution Scummy, but I will go with the rule of law, which makes the Supreme Court the official entity to interpret whether something is allowed under the Constitution.
Unless of course you can reference where in the Constitution it says that interpretations will be made by Scummy.
both the people I cited are highly respected historians, and one of them has a dual role as an economist.
i'd like to see you reference the section where it says that Constitutionality will be determined solely by the Supreme Court?
Both of them? As in two people?
The 1948 poll[/B] was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. of Harvard University.[2] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger
Article III, Section 1 ~
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Thomas Jefferson said:"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
James Madison said:"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -
those were the two i was reading from.
I think I will have to go with the hundreds of historians and scholars from 1948 to the present I referenced that have judged FDR one of the top 3 presidents, ahead of Thomas Jefferson.
if you can point out the portion to me that states that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of whether or not something is Constitutional, I would be much obliged.
i'm still waiting for any of those hundreds of awesome historians to refute anything that i posted.
I already did ~
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?