- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
you avoided my question, and went out on a lark!
In 220 years I cannot find one ruling which agrees with your interpretation. Not only that, I cannot find one Justice who even in a dissent agrees with your ruling.
On the other side - my side - we have uncountable laws passed by congress which according to your standard would be unconstitutional but they have not been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
So again, you got nothing except your own extremist interpretation that has not received any support from any Supreme Court in over 220 years of American jurisprudence.
I really have no clue about your understanding of what you think the constitution says
"does the congress have authority over the people".
you avoided my question, and went out on a lark!
That is more than fine with me because the issue is the position Barkmann has taken which no Supreme Court in 220 years has agreed with.
My position is direct, short, simple and uncomplicated: Article I Section 8 bestows powers upon Congress and they have the right to exercise them as part of the peoples government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
And congress didnt, however a state religion was nontheless established.
They dont prohibit a specific religion they prohibit the EXERCISE of specific actions destroying the intent to get around it in the courts by thousands of narrowly chosen prohibitions.
So the feds do not prohibit the free exercise but the states refuse to acknowledge it and pass laws prohibiting it and "We the Dummies" are non the wiser.
I have seen no state constitution that uses the word "exercise" and the state constitution controls.
You have the right to PRAY and that is where it ends!
The state by it mountain of narrow prohibitions have created a "state religion" and you are forced by these narrow rulings to EXERCISE in accord with the state religion or be jailed or fined or both.
How about that.
yeah that is true, but the government is limited to the powers specifically delegated to it. and that was pretty much the case until FDR figured he could use a few problems-the Depression, the bootleggers, etc to blow the lid off of the jar keeping the federal government bottled up as the founders intended. and with his cowardly justices worried about his threats of packing the court combined with 20 years of nothing but Democrat judges on the courts, he was able to pretty much piss on everything the founders wanted.
and while its honest to admit that the FDR power grab has been cemented into our jurisprudence up and until 5 conservative judges collectively grow a pair, its equally dishonest to pretend that what we have now is what the founders intended or what the constitution actually set forth
Thank you for clarifying that your position IS NOT the absurd position as advanced by Barkmann.
Thank you for clarifying that your position IS NOT the absurd position as advanced by Barkmann.
Your question is something you should research as part of your position. Neither I nor anyone here has any duty to help you.
Between you and me - I suspect your position is so extreme... so off the wall .... so utterly without any legal foundation .... and to be frank - so utterly ridiculous that no attorney in his right mind would ever go to the Court and make the claims you have made here.
But by all means, if you can find one, I will be happy to present it. In the absence of such evidence, it simply has not happened.
I have taken a position using the founders
you have taken a position using the founders.....THEN changing to the USSC.
SO WE HAVE TWO POSTIONS.
your idea is, I must do the work to prove you wrong, by doing internet searches.
yet you feel as if you don't need to do a search which proves your position.
here is my proof. and I have posted it before:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
Document 2
Records of the Federal Convention
[2:127; Madison, 26 July]
Col. Mason. observed that it would be proper, as he thought, that some provision should be made in the Constitution agst. choosing for the seat of the Genl. Govt. the City or place at which the seat of any State Govt. might be fixt. There were 2 objections agst. having them at the same place, which without mentioning others, required some precaution on the subject. The 1st. was that it tended to produce disputes concerning jurisdiction--The 2d. & principal one was that the intermixture of the two Legislatures tended to give a provincial tincture to ye Natl. deliberations. He moved that the Come. be instructed to receive a clause to prevent the seat of the Natl. Govt. being in the same City or town with the seat of the Govt. of any State longer than untill the necessary public buildings could be erected.
Mr. Alex. Martin 2ded. the motion.
Mr. Govr. Morris did not dislike the idea, but was apprehensive that such a clause might make enemies of Philda. & N. York which had expectations of becoming the Seat of the Genl. Govt.
Mr. Langdon approved the idea also: but suggisted the case of a State moving its seat of Govt. to the natl. seat after the erection of the public buildings
Mr. Ghorum. the precaution may be evaded by the Natl. Legislre. by delaying to erect the public buildings
Mr. Gerry conceived it to be the genel. sense of America, that neither the Seat of a State Govt. nor any large commercial City should be the seat of the Genl. Govt.
Mr. Williamson liked the idea, but knowing how much the passions of men were agitated by this matter, was apprehensive of turning them agst. the system. He apprehended also that an evasion might be practiced in the way hinted by Mr. Ghorum.
Mr. Pinkney thought the seat of a State Govt. ought to be avoided; but that a large town or its vicinity would be proper for the seat of the Genl. Govt.
Col. Mason did not mean to press the motion at this time, nor to excite any hostile passions agst. the system. He was content to withdraw the motion for the present.
Mr. Butler was for fixing by the Constitution the place, & a central one, for the seat of the Natl Govt
[2:261; Madison, 11 Aug.]
Mr. King remarked that the section authorized the 2 Houses to adjourn to a new place. He thought this inconvenient. The mutability of place had dishonored the federal Govt. and would require as strong a cure as we could devise. He thought a law at least should be made necessary to a removal of the Seat of Govt.
Mr Madison viewed the subject in the same light, and joined with Mr. King in a motion requiring a law.
Mr. Governr. Morris proposed the additional alteration by inserting the words "during the Session" &c".
Mr. Spaight. this will fix the seat of Govt at N. Y. The present Congress will convene them there in the first instance, and they will never be able to remove; especially if the Presidt. should be Northern Man.
Mr Govr Morris. such a distrust is inconsistent with all Govt.
Mr. Madison supposed that a central place for the Seat of Govt. was so just and wd. be so much insisted on by the H. of Representatives, that though a law should be made requisite for the purpose, it could & would be obtained. The necessity of a central residence of the Govt wd be much greater under the new than old Govt The members of the new Govt wd. be more numerous. They would be taken more from the interior parts of the States: they wd. not, like members of ye present Congs. come so often from the distant States by water. As the powers & objects of the new Govt. would be far greater yn. heretofore, more private individuals wd. have business calling them to the seat of it, and it was more necessary that the Govt should be in that position from which it could contemplate with the most equal eye, and sympathize most equally with, every part of the nation. These considerations he supposed would extort a removal even if a law were made necessary. But in order to quiet suspicions both within & without doors, it might not be amiss to authorize the 2 Houses by a concurrent vote to adjourn at their first meeting to the most proper place, and to require thereafter, the sanction of a law to their removal. The motion was accordingly moulded into the following form: "the Legislature shall at their first assembling determine on a place at which their future sessions shall be held; neither House shall afterwards, during the session of the House of Reps. without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor shall they adjourn to any other place than such as shall have been fixt by law"
Mr. Gerry thought it would be wrong to let the Presdt check the will of the 2 Houses on this subject at all.
Mr Williamson supported the ideas of Mr. Spaight
Mr Carrol was actuated by the same apprehensions
Mr. Mercer. it will serve no purpose to require the two Houses at their first Meeting to fix on a place. They will never agree.
After some further expressions from others denoting an apprehension that the seat of Govt. might be continued at an improper place if a law should be made necessary to a removal, and the motion above stated with another for recommitting the section had been negatived, the Section was left in the shape it which it was reported, as to this point. The words "during the session of the legislature" were prefixed to the 8th section--and the last sentence "But this regulation shall not extend to the Senate when it shall exercise the powers mentioned in the article" struck out. The 8th. section as amended was then agreed to.
[2:510; Madison, 5 Sept.]
So much of the (4) clause as related to the seat of Government was agreed to nem: con:
On the residue, to wit, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.
Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government--
Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word "purchased" the words "by the consent of the Legislature of the State" This would certainly make the power safe.
Mr. Govr Morris 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con: as was then the residue of the clause as amended.
musings?The sad fact is your position - which is actually taking the personal musings of selected individuals which have no force of law and then doing god knows what with them perverting and twisting them into you own individual interpretation - is so far out there...... so extreme ..... so all by itself out there on the limb .... that it is not supported by even one Supreme Court justice in over 220 years of American jurisprudence.
Now go back and read that again Herr Barkmann. We have all sorts of men and women on the Court. And it is the Court which has the last word on the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution regardless if you or I like it or not. We have had liberals and conservatives. We have had some very strict constructionists. And in all the 220 plus years that the Court has done its job - not a single incident can be found where your interpretation of the powers of Congress can be found to have been supported by even one single lone all by himself Justice. Not a one.
Now what does that tell you about the credibility of your own position?
musings?
are you kidding!!!! the founders are debating clause 17 of the powers of congress, and coming to an agreement at the convention on what its wording is, and what it means......musings:doh
Somehow I missed which position you are talking about, would you be so kind as to quote it so I can catch up with what you 2 are talking about?
that is just plain stupidity, the debate and the amending of clause 17 at the convention is the actual content of the constitution......you cant win with that argument, and never do!
And it is the actual content that is the issue - not the personal observations of any person in a debate.
Why is it Herr Barkmann that not a single US Supreme Court justice in over 220 years of American jurisprudence interprets the Constitution the way you do in this matter?
Were those passages you cite top secret until recently and not seen by and Supreme Court or Justice in the last 220 years?
Were those comments from individuals lost to history and only recently unearthed - perhaps in that same warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant is stored away along with the survivor from the Roswell crash?
Were they written is some secret arcane language that only recently was translated with the help of Dan Brown and his DaVinci code?
The fact is that all of these personal musings are nothing new and have been around for over two centuries now. As far as limiting the powers of Congress the way you want them limited, they made no difference to the 112 Supreme Court justices over the last 220 years and they make no difference now.
And all the quotes from Madison and others will not change that Barkmann.
again that is just plain stupid, they are again debating and creating the content of the constitution in clause 17........stop being obtuse.
Sadly for you and your position, all that they said in debates is NOT part of the Constitution.
And what they said is no secret. Why is it Herr Barkmann that not a single US Supreme Court justice in over 220 years of American jurisprudence interprets the Constitution the way you do in this matter?
Were those passages you cite top secret until recently and not seen by and Supreme Court or Justice in the last 220 years?
Were those comments from individuals lost to history and only recently unearthed - perhaps in that same warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant is stored away along with the survivor from the Roswell crash?
Were they written is some secret arcane language that only recently was translated with the help of Dan Brown and his DaVinci code?
The fact is that all of these personal musings are nothing new and have been around for over two centuries now. As far as limiting the powers of Congress the way you want them limited, they made no difference to the 112 Supreme Court justices over the last 220 years and they make no difference now.
And all the quotes from Madison and others will not change that Barkmann.
plain stupid. ........your contention....."the content of the constitution is what counts"
even though what the founders are doing is creating the content. of the very constitution.:doh
You used the word STUPID. It seems you are describing your own position. Lets look at this step by step:
1- The Founders gave us the Constitution and there is no argument about the text of it.
2- The personal observations and opinions of any of the Founders are NOT part of the text of the Constitution and have no legal weight of law.
3 -The Supreme Court is the body whose opinion counts as to the legal holdings as to what the Constitution means.
4 - Despite your citing of individual founders - even that within debate - it has no legal standing to compel anybody to accept it as the official interpretation of what the Constitution means.
5- All of the material from Founders that you have cited has been around for two and one-quarter centuries and is nothing new or revealing.
6- Not one Supreme Court decision sees the limits on the powers of Congress that you see - and they have the same Founders opinions and writing that have caused you to come to your conclusions but apparently they do not put the importance to the words that you do or they do not interpret them the same as you do.
7- Not only is there not one single lone Supreme Court decision which sees the same limits to the powers of Congress that you do, there is not one Justice out of the 112 that have served that even in dissent issued any opinion that comes close to yours. And I have spent hours looking for it. You yourself can find nothing.
8 - In the end, your opinion of the limits on the powers of Congress is so far out.... so extreme ... so without any actual support among the people who officially interpret the Constitution that it simply has no credibility in any way shape or form.
So with all that being said - the word STUPID that you used aptly applies but the application is to your theory and your interpretation.
not exactly true
for example-you claim that the 2A's language demonstrates an INTENT to allow all sorts of INFRINGEMENTS
You went to to the trouble of reprinting my post with all eight statements and then did not speak to any one of them and instead simply tried to weakly use it as a springboard to talk about guns.
I must conclude that you can find not one thing incorrect about the eight statements.
well the point was is that you claim the founders intended one thing with the 2A and just about everyone else says they intended something else. You claim one definition of "infringed" controls and others say your very extreme and narrow version makes no sense.
so how do we decide what the founders actually intended with the term "shall not be infringed"? their writings certainly are relevant then.
its well known in contract law that if the face of the contract is ambiguous, then "parole evidence" is relevant in interpreting what the contract means.
You are making this up to talk about what you want to talk about AND NOT the eight statements of fact I posted.
We have an official body who has the very duty you talked about. And if they feel they want to know what some founder felt about something, they certainly know how to find the material.
what is worthless is pretending that because a corrupt supreme court pissed on the intent of the founders, the intent of the founders is magically changed to what a corrupt court claimed
the fact is-the founders intent is pretty obvious and you seem to want to justify the FDR dishonesty by pretending that the FDR dishonesty is CONSISTENT with the original intent and you then reject any evidence that counters your position.
such as claiming that the writings of the founders is not "law etc"
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?