Our Timidity is Killing the Constitution

James972 · Oct 13, 2019

presluc said:
Perhaps he can make Mexico pay for a wall , nah that's been tried, perhaps a new affordable health care , nay been tried twice, Perhaps by not touching medicare, medicaid, or SS. but according to his budget plan budget cut all 3, perhaps all the new jobs in America Trump brought , well there was something bout coal miners going back to work , manufacturing jobs in the rust belt uhh not so much. So just what has Trump done for the progress of America and the well being of the American people?eace

dear, Trump's economy is booming. Compare that to the LibCommie Green New Deal Great Depression??

James972 · Oct 13, 2019

presluc said:
This welfare/ nanny state wouldn't have anything to do with not only extending the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires but increasing them . The research grants going to rich corporations, the subsidies to oil companies, the taxes collected from the middle class and taxpayer dollars going to tax cuts for the rich would it?eace

can you tell us what your point is?? Try not to be cute but rather to make a point directly.

Rich2018 · Oct 13, 2019

danielpalos said:
A warfare-State conforms to a general defense clause and welfare-State conforms to a general welfare clause.

What would be an example of a policy/law that conformed to a "general" defense clause and what would be an example of a policy/law that conformed to a "common" defense clause ?

What is a "warfare-state" and a "welfare-state"

What conforms to common warfare or welfare ?

WHY CAN'T YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF EACH ?
IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM ?

danielpalos · Oct 13, 2019

James972 said:
Good idea!! a libcommie welfare/ nanny state with everyone trying to leech off the other guy and no one working!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Only the right wing prefers the Hellish Conditions of a Warfare-State on Earth to our expressly enumerated, welfare-State.

danielpalos · Oct 13, 2019

Rich2018 said:
What would be an example of a policy/law that conformed to a "general" defense clause and what would be an example of a policy/law that conformed to a "common" defense clause ?

What is a "warfare-state" and a "welfare-state"

What conforms to common warfare or welfare ?

WHY CAN'T YOU GIVE EXAMPLES OF EACH ?
IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM ?

Ok. Here is one for the Common defense. It is Common and must be related to the Common Law.

This is the Common Law for the Common Defense:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The law is clear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

Rich2018 · Oct 14, 2019

danielpalos said:
Ok. Here is one for the Common defense. It is Common and must be related to the Common Law....

So the 2nd Amendment and the creation/preservation of a militia was/is an example of a "common" defense ?

But in another thread you said:

"Our common defense clause means we should be following our express law regarding that topic. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States."

A Parchment Barrier Needs Enforcement

Post #135

Wouldn't the assertion that with the "a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States" not suggest all contingencies have been covered and thus be a "general" defense clause ?

Now you are confusing, if it's s clear as you maintain why can't you give clear examples of what would be a "common" defense policy/law and what would be a "general" defense policy or law ?

presluc · Oct 14, 2019

James972 said:
dear, Trump's economy is booming. Compare that to the LibCommie Green New Deal Great Depression??

Really , I guess my math must be a bit rusty . However I'll check that again , but I must tell you I know the debt America owed in 2016 , I also know the debt America owes after the last budget plan presented by Trump . You might want to check that yourself, and the IOU to China, or do you like other Trump supporters get you information from Trump rallies and fox news.

eace

presluc · Oct 14, 2019

James972 said:
can you tell us what your point is?? Try not to be cute but rather to make a point directly.

Very well let's cut to the chase.
America has cut education , medicare medicaid, NASA, Vet's benefits. SS in his last budget plan

On the flip side not only did Trump extend tax cuts for the rich he increased them. also research grants and subsidies. that's a chunk of change
I'm just asking what has the rich done for the taxpayers of America?
It was said by rich corporations Government should stay out of the business of private corporations in 2007.
In 2008 they went crying like a bitch to the government crying bailout I might lose my company.
What has the rich done for America?
Provide more jobs uhh no
Higher wages , uhh no
HELP PAY DOWN THE DEBT UHH NO
Start new business in America uhh no
Keep business in place uhh no GM pulled out of Ohio
Help pay government expenses only in a campaign donations and then they'll be expecting something back.
Provide new products , uhh no , unless you call an upgrade new.

Oh FYI , only my wife calls me cute. I have an adjective about what you should not try , unfortunately I can not use it on this forum

eace

Rich2018 · Oct 14, 2019

presluc said:
...Oh FYI , only my wife calls me cute. I have an adjective about what you should not try , unfortunately I can not use it on this forumeace

James also calls you "dear" as he does everyone.

Do yourself a favor and ignore him

danielpalos · Oct 14, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So the 2nd Amendment and the creation/preservation of a militia was/is an example of a "common" defense ?

But in another thread you said:

"Our common defense clause means we should be following our express law regarding that topic. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States."

A Parchment Barrier Needs Enforcement

Post #135

Wouldn't the assertion that with the "a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States" not suggest all contingencies have been covered and thus be a "general" defense clause ?

Now you are confusing, if it's s clear as you maintain why can't you give clear examples of what would be a "common" defense policy/law and what would be a "general" defense policy or law ?

No, because, as i explained previously, our Second Amendment applies. Why would we need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; if we should have no security problems in our free States? Only a general warfare clause provides for such powers.

Rich2018 · Oct 14, 2019

danielpalos said:
No, because, as i explained previously, our Second Amendment applies. Why would we need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; if we should have no security problems in our free States? Only a general warfare clause provides for such powers.

Why can you not give examples ?

Did you not say that the 2nd Amendment means no security concerns...isn't that covering all scenarios ?

danielpalos · Oct 14, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Why can you not give examples ?

Did you not say that the 2nd Amendment means no security concerns...isn't that covering all scenarios ?

No. Only the security of our free States' concerns.

The People are the militia. We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror. We have a Second Amendment.

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

danielpalos said:
No. Only the security of our free States' concerns.

The People are the militia. We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror. We have a Second Amendment.

So in your opinion, the existence of the 2nd Amendment means the USA has no need for a war on crime, drugs or terror.

Explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.

danielpalos · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So in your opinion, the existence of the 2nd Amendment means the USA has no need for a war on crime, drugs or terror.

Explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.

lol. Our Second Amendment is clear. What part of it do you not understand?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

presluc · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
James also calls you "dear" as he does everyone.

Do yourself a favor and ignore him

Not my style, I don't use the ignore button , don't know where it is anyway, neither do I ignore a post directed at me .
.
However this is a debate forum is it not?

eace

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

danielpalos said:
lol. Our Second Amendment is clear. What part of it do you not understand?

The bit where you appear to claim the 2nd Amendment negates the need for a war on crime, drugs and terror...that is what you're saying isn't it ?

If so, explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

presluc said:
Not my style, I don't use the ignore button , don't know where it is anyway, neither do I ignore a post directed at me .
.
However this is a debate forum is it not?eaceeaceeace

It is but with him, you may as well debate with a wall.

danielpalos · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
The bit where you appear to claim the 2nd Amendment negates the need for a war on crime, drugs and terror...that is what you're saying isn't it ?

If so, explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.

lol. Did you miss the first clause?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

danielpalos said:
lol. Did you miss the first clause?

Go ahead and explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.
Use whatever clauses you want.

danielpalos · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Go ahead and explain how letting citizens buy a Colt 45 should prevent crime or terrorism.
Use whatever clauses you want.

In this manner and fashion:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

danielpalos said:
In this manner and fashion:

How can letting a citizen buy a Colt.45, ensure a well regulated militia, and how does a well regulated militia remove the need for a war on crime, drugs and terror ?

Why has it failed ?

danielpalos · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
How can letting a citizen buy a Colt.45, ensure a well regulated militia, and how does a well regulated militia remove the need for a war on crime, drugs and terror ?

Why has it failed ?

In this manner and fashion:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A lack of enforcement of the law, right wingers.

Rich2018 · Oct 15, 2019

danielpalos said:
In this manner and fashion:

A lack of enforcement of the law, right wingers.

So a 2nd Amendment allows citizens to "enforce the law" because they own a firearm ?

What's the difference between that and mob rule, of lynch mobs of vigilantes?

So can you explain, and not in a quote or terse one liner, explain the due process of combating crime, drugs and terror with privately owned firearms supporting a well regulated militia ?

In short, how does or how do a privately armed citizen(s), in a well regulated militia, with his/their Colt .45 tackle crime ?
Also be sure to include how "due process" and the law would fit in with your theory.

danielpalos · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
So a 2nd Amendment allows citizens to "enforce the law" because they own a firearm ?

What's the difference between that and mob rule, of lynch mobs of vigilantes?

So can you explain, and not in a quote or terse one liner, explain the due process of combating crime, drugs and terror with privately owned firearms supporting a well regulated militia ?

In short, how does or how do a privately armed citizen(s), in a well regulated militia, with his/their Colt .45 tackle crime ?
Also be sure to include how "due process" and the law would fit in with your theory.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

James972 · Oct 15, 2019

Rich2018 said:
In short, how does or how do a privately armed citizen(s), in a well regulated militia, with his/their Colt .45 tackle crime ?
Also be sure to include how "due process" and the law would fit in with your theory.

Justice Thomas has written in some of his opinions about a black man who held off the Klan with his firearms and saved his family from being lynched. Now do you understand?