Slavery. The ability to regulate slavery was not given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.
You can't see the difference in pre-Civil War and after? Before the Civil War, it was thought that States had the right to nullify Federal law and secede from the Union. The Civil War settled those arguments as well (in the negative). That's what I'd call a fundamental switch.
In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Daley contended that President Obama and leaders in Congress had been "extremely close" to a deal on Friday night, but that House Speaker John Boehner had abandoned negotiations rather than urge his party to agree to the bipartisan plan.
"The truth is, we were probably 85 percent there," Daley told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "There were different options on different items. Much of it related to what would be the best strategy to get the needed votes to pass this, because it was going to be very hard for Democrats with the amount of entitlement cuts...And at the same time, the Speaker was going to have to go to caucus and say, 'There is a need for revenue to solve our problem.' And that's where the breakdown happened."
"Speaker Boehner...walked away twice from a deal with the president which would have finally begun a serious attempt to cut spending," Daley added.
Are you saying that they could not regulate importation of slaves after 1808?
Sorry, but this doesn't address the issue.
Maybe there are two constitutons. One for liberals and one for conservatives. If so, I still have yet to see the liberal one.
No, I'm saying that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or the President given any authority to legislate against slavery. Not in the states, and according to the Dred Scott decision, not in Federal Territories either.
Au contraire, we were talking about the relative power of states vs. Feds. That power structure profoundly changed in the wake of the Civil War, never to go back again. You can talk about Madison all you like, but his country hasn't existed since at least 1860. To go back to the original framers would be to ignore the past 150 years of American history.
Strangely, I haven't seen either of these. I have seen plenty of well-intentioned people disagree over what exactly it says.
Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Boehner? I hope it was worth it, you worthless sac (spelling intentional) of ****.
Do you really think the Boehner is that useful? At least common manure does have a functional gardening usage.
What amendment changed the power structure profoundly? Which amendment negated Article I, section 8? I am not ignoring any of the history.
No amendments. It still changed. Saying the Civil War didn't change anything is, frankly, the sort of absolutely ignorant thing that I expect Michele Bachmann to say. If you think the change in how power happened in this country is wrong, you have the right to think so. Get in your time machine and go tell Abraham Lincoln. It did change. Power effectively moved up the ladder.
Should we reverse everything that isn't in the Constitution? I think Sarah Palin's fans wouldn't be very happy because you just negated the purchase of Alaska (and the entire Louisiana Purchase). You can't go back, that shark's been jumped.
Fark said it best. "Boehner goes limp, pulls out."
How rude to have left Obama on his hands and knees.
I am honestly not even paying attention to this mess... I think they'll sort something out, because if they don't raise the ceiling the results will be disastrous and nobody wants to risk getting blamed.
OK, tax credits. But my point still stands that the spending under Obama has a lot of spending due to legislation passed by republicans under bush*
Now, you're just posting fiction. There is no "porkulus bill" and UI benefits have not been extended endlessly
And even if they were, that doesn't undue all the wasteful spending passed by republicans and signed by bush*
Both bush* and Obama (and both parties) are responsible for Education Deform. That still doesn't undue all the wasteful spending passed by republicans and signed by bush*
We *HAD* a surplus.....that is until bush* and the republicans went on their spending spree
I'm with you! Those with big money stand to lose the most if we default, or even get our credit rating lowered. They will not allow their lackeys to do that.
The debt limit will be raised, so don't sweat it peoples! :sun
It is about time Boehner grew a pair and did what the country needed, not what the politicians need. Good for him.
nobody with skin that color has a pair, unless they've been surgically attached. he's a complete waste of space.
Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Boehner? I hope it was worth it, you worthless sac (spelling intentional) of ****.
no it doesn't. the Stimulus wasn't passed under Bush.
the 24% increase in domestic spending under Obama wasn't passed under Bush. the trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see that are part of Obama's budget proposal were never part of Bush.
look, i'm not going to sit here and argue that Bush was anything but a big spender, or any kind of a fiscal hawk. but Obama's spending hikes are his own.
eh, hyperbole. the Stimulus Bill spending turned out to be mostly aid to politically important democratic states and localities - that's what you call "pork spending". and UI benefits have indeed been extended again, and again, and again. 99 weeks on top of the States coverage. You can live for two years for free on others' dime.
.agreed. you should see the (lengthy, angry) letters I sent back to the RNC when they dared to ask me for contributions in 2008
which remains less than that which was passed and signed by Obama. Spending grew under Bush and accelerated under Obama. If one man walks up and shoots you in the knee, and another walks up and shoots you in the face - you can't exactly blame your death on the first man.
Looks like their "lackey" Boehner is failing them, doesn't it?
This is all about nObama's election and NOT About the American people and that's why nObama won't compromise and is throwing fits, after all he created all the mess we are in.
OMG!!!
Article V, Constitution of the United States of America
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I take it that this part of the Constitution was made null and void during Reconstruction or shortly thereafter. Is that correct? Can you provide any documentation that this part of the Constitution was made null and void?
If amending was no longer necessary to change the Constitution and that the Federal Government was all powerful, why do we have Amendments beginning with the Sixteenth on? Why is that and do you have any documentation to support your views on this.
I have read many books on the Constitution and my current reading regards the Fourteenth Amendment. I have read the Journal of the 39th Congress which is the Congress who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment and I cannot find where they mentioned anything about your thesis.
Since this is so clear to you, it must be obvious that there is a great deal of evidence to support your theory. I look forward to reviewing.
So your position is, nothing changed after the Civil War. Interesting interpretation of history. The way that power was supposed to be promulgated didn't change. I know that parts of the Constitution didn't change. There were amendments, and we agree that none of them changed the power structure as written in the Constitution. Yet, this changed.
What part of the Constitution gave Lincoln the right to go to war against seceding states? What part gave him the right to free slaves by executive decree? Did this stop him? I think he was right, but the narrow view of the Constitution that says he did not have this power is exactly what paralyzed James Buchanan, who is probably the worst President in history.
Do you need documentation that the Civil War actually occurred, or can we take that as given? Do you need documentation that the country changed afterwards? Because it's pretty obvious to most people with an 11th grade education that it did.
I know that parts of the Constitution, as written, did not change. I'm not arguing that they did. I'm arguing that the nature of the Union changed regardless.
This is all about nObama's election and NOT About the American people and that's why nObama won't compromise and is throwing fits, after all he created all the mess we are in.
Whenever you think of Obama, think 'Cloward-Piven'. That's the name of the strategy by which Obama has sabotaged our economy. Everything he says and does goes to the full employment of that strategy. Obama seeks the destruction of the American economy by overloading it with debt.
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?