- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That says it all, doesn't it, that you would even pretend at a Royal Title? Your charade has been exposed ...he king, over anybody you can put forth.
Sorry, but that doesn't address the points. We have no real idea how the founding fathers would have adapted as the years rolled on. We do know that in their time, they did adapt. They did move from their first effort. They did strengthen the federal government from their first effort. Like the evangelical, you're too fixed on a literal reading that ignores two hundred years of history. And just as they do, too often you misread the meaning and don't connect all the dots.
That says it all, doesn't it, that you would even pretend at a Royal Title? Your charade has been exposed ...
bull, its what i said all along, no one should be force to be taught something which goes against what they have already been taught.
you on the other hand want to force your way of thinking on to other people, ..becuase you deem your valves to be right...and you dont have that authority
Leaving aside the fact that you have no clue what I want, let me point out, again, that I am not forcing anything, I am simply showing your source to be full of ****. When you depend on a source that is lying, that kinda refutes your point.
really?... i have said anything of a sexual nature should be introduced in the school system, however i know you want something of a sexual nature introduced, and force used.
Since that's what I was talking about and you didn't refute it, yes, I did.only you would take that to mean royal....is it no wonder i have to explain things over and over.
Still trying desperately to divert from your failed source I see.
Since that's what I was talking about and you didn't refute it, yes, I did.
Madison was not the loan signer of the Constitution not was everyone that signed it in agreement with his interpretation of it.
read the federalist papers which explain the constitution.
if you wish the links i will provide them for you, the only things which are not explained, are things which are self-evident, like ages of politicians, simple things which are very easy to understand.
Read them and more. I know my limitations. I'm trying to get you to see yours.
really then how do you get pass Madison's words in federalist 42 on commerce....when he states its a state problem of commerce....... not a business or people problem, show me where the constitution places a limit of people or business.
Because it isn't the end of the discussion. More came after that.
really so because the states were engaged in trade wars and barriers with each other this means the federal government was given power to regulate people and business?
where are people and business in the constitution limited?
so becuase Roscoe Filburn grew wheat to feed to his cattle this means the federal government should regulate all commerce...i think not!
Again, read history. We have 200 years of it. I've given you a lot of it, so you have places to start.
i have read you have not, ..your attempts of always saying something is something .........but producing no evidence is your usual MO.
I've already produced evidence. I gave several links. That's evidence young man. You've merely ranted, failing to address the evidence. Once you do that, address the evidence, I'll move to the next batch. But the point is, like the fundamentalist, you're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your reading and / or explains changes along the way. The bet I can do is give you readings that explain this argument. I've done that. So, no more ranting. Tackle the evidence I gave you.
young man, no that does not apply tome.........you have not produced anything from the founders, who created the constitution and its commerce clause.
the federal government has only controlled commerce over people and business for 70 years, and you saying they were given that power by the founders in the constitution?
the founders gave no AUTHORITY to the federal government over the people.. except for pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors, and with the 16th amendment, ....tax cheats, .......the constitution is a limiting document on governments.
I don't have to produce anything from the founders. It didn't end there. It only began there. Over two hundred years, things don't stay static. Constantly I show you the movement, what led to what, what law allowed it, what written allowed it, the arguments used. Because history escapes you, and your view is too narrow, you miss reality. This is why I do are you to the fundamentalist religious zealot. You don't know enough to see your error, and your mind s closed to learning more, which I suspect is why you ignore the evidence I've given.
no it does end there... until there an amendment to the constitution thats delagates another power to congress, and since america founding, can you tell me what powers have been given to congress outside of the 18 besides .... taxes to income.
There have been amendments. The courts refer to them. And I have already linked an answer to your question, you should have read it.
what amendments give them more powers, ....besides income taxes.
Gave you that and the 14th. There are several links. You really should read them.
sorry no..... this gives congress no power it talks about former slaves with rights privileges and immunities due process, no discrimination by governments.
people and representation.......but does not bestow any powers.
But it does. Read the links. Your premise is largely false. And I did link explanations on that. I won't go any further until you catch up. Read the links.
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?