- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And who puts the various decision makers in power??? The People. If we don't like what they're doing we can always throw them out and get someone else in there that will do what we want - whatever that may be.so your saying the government CONTROLS THE PEOPLE....they the master and we the servant!...........thats brilliant!
What state in their right mind would allow a neighboring state to send pollution downstream, whether it's in water or air? They wouldn't. The result is that no pollution is possible, which is also impossible if we want to keep any industry in America at all. Obviously, the onus will fall on the federal government to resolve the issue of pollution.EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.
People and businesses effect not only interstate commerce but foreign commerce, as well, by what they produce. This should be obvious to anyone who has thought more than half a minute in the most simple terms of commodities, if nothing else, but it also applies to most goods and some services.can you understand this.......people/ business do not make laws........government makes laws.
why does government need to regulate commerce on people and business when they dont make laws.
The states can't make laws about interstate commerce, plain and simple. The states can't make laws about international commerce, plain and simple. Only Uncle Sam can do either of those things. Quit being dense.the constitution handed over commerce between estates to the federal government, the Constitution states, among the states , not in the states.
the constitution does not give powers to government over the people.
Only to the closed minded novice. There would be no court cases if it were that clear.
And who puts the various decision makers in power??? The People. If we don't like what they're doing we can always throw them out and get someone else in there that will do what we want - whatever that may be.
What state in their right mind would allow a neighboring state to send pollution downstream, whether it's in water or air? They wouldn't. The result is that no pollution is possible, which is also impossible if we want to keep any industry in America at all. Obviously, the onus will fall on the federal government to resolve the issue of pollution.
You should use logic a little more instead of being obstinate.
that is becuase the people in power will always embellish themselves with more power.
People and businesses effect not only interstate commerce but foreign commerce, as well, by what they produce. This should be obvious to anyone who has thought more than half a minute in the most simple terms of commodities, if nothing else, but it also applies to most goods and some services.
The states can't make laws about interstate commerce, plain and simple. The states can't make laws about international commerce, plain and simple. Only Uncle Sam can do either of those things. Quit being dense.
It doesn't help the. Courts to give the president or congress power. Sorry, but that doesn't explain it.
I understand this perfectly, and point to our checks and balances. The courts have no such dog in the fight.your not understanding.
every person no matter who they are is self-serving, which means they will always do things which work in their own interest, the founders talk of this, that is why they placed limitations on themselves with enumerated powers.
they knew if they had no limit on them, they would turn into wolves among sheep.
all people who find themselves int he halls of congress or where they are with power, always look to increase that power.
I understand this perfectly, and point to our checks and balances. The courts have no such dog in the fight.
oh, even the court thru there decisions, never increase the government powers?
you know as well as i the court is 5 -4 in favor of conservatives, ...so it pits one side against the other, and its not supposed to have a side at all.
Pay attention. I said they had no motivation to do so.
And they really have a side. One may tend to think more liberally, and another more conservatively, but not sides. I suspect they have very interesting debates in private. But always they base their argument in law. While you don't understand how complicated language can be, they do.
LOL.....the constitution is a very easy to read document, as when it was first put to paper by Gouverneur Morris
Have you ever heard of the communication triangle? Your are factually wrong to view any document as being so simple as to avod all debate.
oh tell me where the constitution is difficult.
How many cases have there been? How many rulings did you get wrong? You choose to blame it in some funny business, but honest people merely disagreed on what meant what. Can't you see this?
i just asked you a question, and you didn't answer it.
Because s it's a long answer. Much of the court cases I linked show the disagreement. Cases are studied showing different people read the same passages. Take the second amendment for example. How many times has that been disputed? Do you doubt that I can't find at least two different readings of what is said in that amendment alone?
Are you saying the second amendment to the Constitution is in the Constitution?how is it long, take something from the constitution which you think is hard to understand......is that difficult?
Are you saying the second amendment to the Constitution is in the Constitution?
i asked you to find something in the constitution which you think is hard to understand.
And I gave the example of the second amendment. What are you not getting?
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?