Is it getting time to invoke the Declaration of Independence again?

[reefedjib]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The abuse of Article 1, Section 8 continues and the health of the Republic is in balance. Talk about a "reset" button, we could inflate currency to abolish all debt and start over with clauses to prevent implicit assumption of powers.

 

[Deuce]

The abuse of Article 1, Section 8 continues and the health of the Republic is in balance. Talk about a "reset" button, we could inflate currency to abolish all debt and start over with clauses to prevent implicit assumption of powers.

Yes we should definitely be more like Zimbabwe.

 

[Hayduke]

I am at a loss as to why you believe congress does not have the power to enact legislation? Clause 18 in that article has been viewed pretty broadly and our govt. has a system by which they can remove any unjust or bad legislation. The pres can veto and since Marbury we have judicial review, so the SC can find their actions unconstitutional. Let the system work.

"The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." Justice Black

 

[DarkWizard12]

I am at a loss as to why you believe congress does not have the power to enact legislation? Clause 18 in that article has been viewed pretty broadly and our govt. has a system by which they can remove any unjust or bad legislation. The pres can veto and since Marbury we have judicial review, so the SC can find their actions unconstitutional. Let the system work.

"The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." Justice Black

Because it is an abuse. Clause 18 was only meant to work within the limits of the other clauses. this has nothing to do with "liking legislation", it has everything to do with "liking what is constitutional".

 

[Hayduke]

Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare under Sec 8, enact legislation to enforce equal protection rights under the 14th and do what is necissary and proper to exicute their powers. I am assuming this post is about healthcare so lets take it from that angle. Congress is going to utilize their tax power (sec 8) to provide for the general welfare (sec 8) in an issue many people believe is an issue of equal protection (14th) with a bill that is necissary and proper to carry out these powers. Once again I refer you to Justice Blacks quote.

 

[bicycleman]

Congress has the power to tax and provide for the general welfare under Sec 8, enact legislation to enforce equal protection rights under the 14th and do what is necissary and proper to exicute their powers. I am assuming this post is about healthcare so lets take it from that angle. Congress is going to utilize their tax power (sec 8) to provide for the general welfare (sec 8) in an issue many people believe is an issue of equal protection (14th) with a bill that is necissary and proper to carry out these powers. Once again I refer you to Justice Blacks quote.

Since we're talking about the healt care bill, where in that Constitution does it talk about redistribution of wealth, and why since I work, I must support those who do not?

 

[Hayduke]

Well we can argue all day about whether this is redistrobution of wealth or weather its no different than funding the military, post office, roads, water treatment, prisons, police, schools...want me to keep going?

However you want an example similar to healthcare you dont have to look much farther than the 6th amendment. The framers understood that in critical situations which will have lasting effects on your life the govt had better pay for a professional to help you out if you cannot afford one yourself.

 

[Groucho]

Don't be silly, there is no comparison between then and now.

Just because you lost an election doesn't mean it's time for a revolution. Don't like what the country is doing? Vote them out and get new ones in.

 

[bicycleman]

Don't be silly, there is no comparison between then and now.

Just because you lost an election doesn't mean it's time for a revolution. Don't like what the country is doing? Vote them out and get new ones in.

That's the plan, but the present administration's disregard for the Constitution has everyone a bit concerned.

 

[samsmart]

That's the plan, but the present administration's disregard for the Constitution has everyone a bit concerned.

Everyone was a bit concerned for the previous administration's disregard for the Constitution as well.

 

[Hayduke]

That's the plan, but the present administration's disregard for the Constitution has everyone a bit concerned.

I believe I have a pretty good grasp on Con Law so please humor me with what exactly Obama has done or is doing which violates the constitution? I would be really interested in the specific precedent you can use to support your belief.

 

[American]

I believe I have a pretty good grasp on Con Law so please humor me with what exactly Obama has done or is doing which violates the constitution? I would be really interested in the specific precedent you can use to support your belief.

Frankly the grasp you have appears to be one like a socialist would have.

 

[Hayduke]

Frankly the grasp you have appears to be one like a socialist would have.

Frankly, in the past hour of arguing with you I have not seen you make a single logical argument supported by any facts. However, I think you have used the word socialist, or some form of it, no less than 5 times. Talk radio and Fox News have taught you well; if you cant argue the merits make claims against the person which will incite fear.

 

[Joe Steel]

Frankly, in the past hour of arguing with you I have not seen you make a single logical argument supported by any facts. However, I think you have used the word socialist, or some form of it, no less than 5 times. Talk radio and Fox News have taught you well; if you cant argue the merits make claims against the person which will incite fear.

That's not unusual. Quite a few of the participants think unsupported assertion and ad hominem attacks are perfectly acceptable.

 

[American]

Frankly, in the past hour of arguing with you I have not seen you make a single logical argument supported by any facts. However, I think you have used the word socialist, or some form of it, no less than 5 times. Talk radio and Fox News have taught you well; if you cant argue the merits make claims against the person which will incite fear.

From the man who hasn't supported a single assertion with a source.

 

[bicycleman]

I believe I have a pretty good grasp on Con Law so please humor me with what exactly Obama has done or is doing which violates the constitution? I would be really interested in the specific precedent you can use to support your belief.

I would be very interested if you could humor me with a display of your vast knowledge. Talk is cheap.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress and President have the right to force us to buy health insurance, or use our taxes to bail out banks and insurance companies?

Why does Obama call the Constitution a Negative Document? Is it because it limits his power? Well, it won't for long because he is determined to legislate it out. If you search your Constitution, Mr. Scholar, you will see that the function of the President is to carry out laws legislated by Congress (both houses). It is not his function to brow beat members of the House and Senate into voting for his bill. Sounds like a dictator to me, or at least one in the making.

The health care bill steps on states' rights. Read the 10th Amendment for starters. Wait, you don't have to, since you are an expert. Here it is for the rest of the normal people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What about when Obama took over the auto industry and started dictating policy? Being a socialist, you probably missed that one, since that is normal policy in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia.

Obama routinely bypasses the vetting process of cabinet members by the Senate, because his Communist cabinet members wouldn't pass muster under the scrutiny that a Republican Senate, or for that matter, an ethical Democrat one, would impose. Does the name of the whacko, Cass Sunstein come to mind?

Since you are an expert on the Constitution, I bet you were up in arms over how Obama handled the Honduran debacle. Remember when the sitting President violated the Honduran Constitution and was deposed? Obama had a fit over this obvious dictator being removed by a Constitutional scholar. I was beginning to wonder whether we were going to Honduras to make war with the good guys over deposing a dictator who was violating the Constitution?

I could go on and on, but I will give you time to digest this information.

 

[bicycleman]

Frankly, in the past hour of arguing with you I have not seen you make a single logical argument supported by any facts. However, I think you have used the word socialist, or some form of it, no less than 5 times. Talk radio and Fox News have taught you well; if you cant argue the merits make claims against the person which will incite fear.

What's your news source, CNN and the MS Obama News network?

 

[Groucho]

I would be very interested if you could humor me with a display of your vast knowledge. Talk is cheap.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Congress and President have the right to force us to buy health insurance, or use our taxes to bail out banks and insurance companies?

Why does Obama call the Constitution a Negative Document? Is it because it limits his power? Well, it won't for long because he is determined to legislate it out. If you search your Constitution, Mr. Scholar, you will see that the function of the President is to carry out laws legislated by Congress (both houses). It is not his function to brow beat members of the House and Senate into voting for his bill. Sounds like a dictator to me, or at least one in the making.

The health care bill steps on states' rights. Read the 10th Amendment for starters. Wait, you don't have to, since you are an expert. Here it is for the rest of the normal people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What about when Obama took over the auto industry and started dictating policy? Being a socialist, you probably missed that one, since that is normal policy in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia.

Obama routinely bypasses the vetting process of cabinet members by the Senate, because his Communist cabinet members wouldn't pass muster under the scrutiny that a Republican Senate, or for that matter, an ethical Democrat one, would impose. Does the name of the whacko, Cass Sunstein come to mind?

Since you are an expert on the Constitution, I bet you were up in arms over how Obama handled the Honduran debacle. Remember when the sitting President violated the Honduran Constitution and was deposed? Obama had a fit over this obvious dictator being removed by a Constitutional scholar. I was beginning to wonder whether we were going to Honduras to make war with the good guys over deposing a dictator who was violating the Constitution?

I could go on and on, but I will give you time to digest this information.

Allow me to respond, as an attorney and Con Law Professor.

Now, this may seem complicated to you, so please read carefully.

Here goes:

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

I know, a difficult concept, but one that is supported by all Constitutional law.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Frankly the grasp you have appears to be one like a socialist would have.

American, you don't know what the word socialist actually means, you ass rape the english language, political theory, Adam West, Karl Marx, Eugene Debbs, and just about everybody with a grasp on what words actually mean every time you open your mouth. Please either educate yourself or stop talking. On behalf of reality, thank you in advance.

 

[bicycleman]

Allow me to respond, as an attorney and Con Law Professor.

Now, this may seem complicated to you, so please read carefully.

Here goes:

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

I know, a difficult concept, but one that is supported by all Constitutional law.

The only response I have seen from you is that you have asserted the fact that you are a lawyer.

Supported by Constitutional Law as interpreted by a liberal lawyer.

 

[Groucho]

American, you don't know what the word socialist actually means, you ass rape the english language, political theory, Adam West, Karl Marx, Eugene Debbs, and just about everybody with a grasp on what words actually mean every time you open your mouth. Please either educate yourself or stop talking. On behalf of reality, thank you in advance.

Adam West????

 

[bicycleman]

American, you don't know what the word socialist actually means, you ass rape the english language, political theory, Adam West, Karl Marx, Eugene Debbs, and just about everybody with a grasp on what words actually mean every time you open your mouth. Please either educate yourself or stop talking. On behalf of reality, thank you in advance.

Since you are the only one who knows the definition of socialist, please provide one.

 

[Groucho]

The only response I have seen from you is that you have asserted the fact that you are a lawyer.

The Constitution limits rights. It doesn't list every single one. To argue that something is not allowed because it is not specifically mentioned is incorrect.

If you are to claim that the Constitution prevents this legislation, then point out what part of the Constitution it violates.

There is none. This sort of thing has been done plenty of times before and has been Constitutional. In fact, it's even been done on a larger scale.

It's fine to disagree with this bill. Hell, even I disagree with this bill (because I don't think it does enough and it places a burden on business at a time when the economy doesn't need it). But to claim that it is unConstitutional just because you don't like it is ridiculous.

 

[bicycleman]

The Constitution limits rights. It doesn't list every single one. To argue that something is not allowed because it is not specifically mentioned is incorrect.

If you are to claim that the Constitution prevents this legislation, then point out what part of the Constitution it violates.

There is none. This sort of thing has been done plenty of times before and has been Constitutional. In fact, it's even been done on a larger scale.

It's fine to disagree with this bill. Hell, even I disagree with this bill (because I don't think it does enough and it places a burden on business at a time when the economy doesn't need it). But to claim that it is unConstitutional just because you don't like it is ridiculous.

Since you are the lawyer and teacher, why don't you demonstrate how Obama and the Democrat majority Congress have not violated the Constitution?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Haha, meant to say Adam Smith. My mistake. Though I'm sure the stupid makes Adam West cry too.

socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)
socialism, socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources."

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=1F6&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=s&defl=en&q=define:socialism&ei=gKKnS_8jzq-2B8L6xeEC&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE]define:socialism - Google Search[/ame]