- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
:doh "In which the same should be for forts, etc etc".
Not only do they have the power to purchase and regulate the places they purchase from the state legislature, as long as the legislature has given consent, but the congress also has the power to regulate in the same manner US forts in the state, docks, other needed places.... Its essentially saying that congress has the power to regulate forts, dockyards, arsentals in the same matter in which they regulate land they have purchased form the states... Its not saying congress has the power to regulate "all places purchased by the states, but never mind it only applies to docks and arsenals"...
"The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound, and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. It is under the like terms in the same [Volume 3, Page 234] clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction. And such was manifestly the avowed intention of those wise and great men who framed the constitution." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: United States v. Cornell
You have also ignored this as well: "And also here Hence: Article Four, section 3, clause 2... "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
Stretching it? Im not stretching it at all. Its clear as day and this clear portion of the constitution has constantly and constantly been upheld as this by the Supreme Court.There's no need for us to go any further on this subject. You're stretching and I'm not buying it.
I have thought about this a little more and I think it means what you mean by "arbiters".We disagree on this one. Let's just move on to the next one where me may get some common ground - like her statement that the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the Constitution, which we both agree is dead wrong.
From where we sit now, the SCOTUS should have never been given such power. The States should still have the ultimate decision making power.
The States were the original creators of the Constitution so, they should have the final say in any constitutional issue. Anything less should be considered judicial tyranny. IMHO
The states creating the Constitution does not necessarily preclude their acceptance of judicial review.The States were the original creators of the Constitution so, they should have the final say in any constitutional issue. Anything less should be considered judicial tyranny. IMHO
The states didn't create anything. People created our Constitution and did so knowing that unlimited power in the hands of the states was a very dangerous thing. The people are what's important. Screw the states and their tyrannies.
There are some locals who don't much care for the Bundy boys and their acolytes
One more time, the 'Real Americans' have acted and spoken out without actually pondering the possible consequences
You think 9 people in Black robes is a better tyranny...I suppose.
They stole the power they now have. [also unconstitutional]
Then that is something that must be decided at the ballot box - not by taking over federal buildings.
Yes, the founding fathers were complete idiots who never conceived technology would advance. :roll: What tired old memes liberals regurgitate ad nauseam.It is a good thing that they did "expand" their powers. The Constitution, being the 200+ year old document that it is, didn't exactly lay out of alot of information about how to handle airplanes, automobiles, or the internet.
I first saw the video on the Bundy Family FB page. I never saw it before, or heard of the poster before. My suspicion is people are checking out the FB page, watching it, and now exporting it everywhere!Some clown posted this idiotic video on a facebook page that I am part of, its a music page, one for a fantastic internet radio station.
I asked her why she felt she had to spread kook crap where it isn't welcome. She went all RWNJ ballistic...her post got pulled from the page within minutes..
Yes, the founding fathers were complete idiots who never conceived technology would advance. :roll: What tired old memes liberals regurgitate ad nauseam.
Colonial Americans would likely disagree.
No, I don't think so, seeing as how they were fighting "taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party was launched because the English companies - the tea industry, in particular - were not paying their fair share of taxes, and during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington himself supported a strong federal government...and I'd say he knew a bit more about what they were fighting for than you do.
But since colonial Americans were fighting (what was in their eyes) tyranny, let's address "tyranny" for a moment.
Every single time I see an American of any political stripe cry "tyranny" because the federal government's doing this or that, with a few notable exceptions (Jim Crow, internment camps, etc.), those Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about. When it comes to people complaining about how tyrannical the federal government is, I'd dearly LOVE to send them to a real tyranny for a year or so, then when they come home, ask them if they still think America's a tyranny.
Yes, soft tyranny is so much better than liberty. :roll:
Better since they are actually checked in their power by other ways in which the government operates.
Tell you what - when you grasp what liberty really is, come back and let us know.
No, I don't think so, seeing as how they were fighting "taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party was launched because the English companies - the tea industry, in particular - were not paying their fair share of taxes, and during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington himself supported a strong federal government...and I'd say he knew a bit more about what they were fighting for than you do.
But since colonial Americans were fighting (what was in their eyes) tyranny, let's address "tyranny" for a moment.
Every single time I see an American of any political stripe cry "tyranny" because the federal government's doing this or that, with a few notable exceptions (Jim Crow, internment camps, etc.), those Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about. When it comes to people complaining about how tyrannical the federal government is, I'd dearly LOVE to send them to a real tyranny for a year or so, then when they come home, ask them if they still think America's a tyranny.
Name them
what about the federal government murdering american Citizens which they did in the 1950's by giving them radiation pills.....
SCOTUS cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional unless it is challenged. And those challenging any court decision must have standing. An Amendment can be added to the Constitution to change it.
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?