You have NO right to exercise your religion

[haymarket]

false, it is your inability to understand, the congress, is able to create federal laws, which pertain to the general powers of the constitution, the constitution's general powers, have nothing to do with the PERSONAL LIFES OF THE PEOPLE.

congress has the ability to make laws to punishes citizens...IF, they commit treason, counterfeit, piracy, tax evasion, etc. ...but they have no power to create laws on the backs of the people.

example,...[congress] has no authority to create legislation, on the property or people....but the executive, judicial branch's do have authority to enter your land, if you commit a federal crime, and the courts have authority in rulings concerning you or your property.

so it is not no laws, they can create laws, which are stated in the general powers, but the only way a citizen can be involved is...the citizen must commit a crime, involving a general power.

the federal government, cannot make an EPA law on the backs of people.......because no where is the ground, air and water in the constitution for a general power.

So name some of those laws that COngress passed that you claim they did not have the power to pass. Not generalities. Not subject matters. Specifics. Give us the name of the law and what it did and why you think Congress did not have the power to do it.

So far you have failed miserable to name even one.

 

[haymarket]

then why aren't there thousands of court cases stating this arguement?

by the way, why is it that you never cite supreme court decisions?

Because it is a far right whack job argument without any basis in reality or in the actual Constitution.

Keep in mind that this fellow cannot cite one US Supreme Court decision in over 220 years which agrees with his position. Not a one. That tells you how isolated and how far right extremist he is.

 

[Green Man]

I do not need to be specific, any federal law pertaining to education is unconstitutional

This is obvious. Check out article I, section 8. Nothing at all about education.

 

[haymarket]

This is obvious. Check out article I, section 8. Nothing at all about education.

Education does not promote the general welfare? :doh:shock::roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Education does not promote the general welfare? :doh:shock::roll:

so it is your position as long as congress claims something promotes the "General Welfare" that allows congress to avoid the 10th Amendment and do whatever it wants

Do you think that is consistent with what the founders intended?

 

[Green Man]

so it is your position as long as congress claims something promotes the "General Welfare" that allows congress to avoid the 10th Amendment and do whatever it wants

Do you think that is consistent with what the founders intended?

Congress has no power to enact any legislation that promotes the general welfare. There are many fascists who desire absolute power over their fellow man, and the are willing to pervert the constitution in order to accomplish their goals.

 

[jimbo]

No - I think the biggest problem you have is just not making sense.

What is your point?

Thank you. I thought that I might be the only one who hasn't any idea what the point is.

 

[haymarket]

so it is your position as long as congress claims something promotes the "General Welfare" that allows congress to avoid the 10th Amendment and do whatever it wants

Do you think that is consistent with what the founders intended?

No - not just claim it - It has to actually promote the general welfare. And yes, I think it is 100% consistent with the Founders document that they gave us.

 

[haymarket]

Congress has no power to enact any legislation that promotes the general welfare. There are many fascists who desire absolute power over their fellow man, and the are willing to pervert the constitution in order to accomplish their goals.

As usual - you are wrong. read and learn

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

 

[TurtleDude]

No - not just claim it - It has to actually promote the general welfare. And yes, I think it is 100% consistent with the Founders document that they gave us.

I disagree. everything I have read about the constitution suggested that the founders wanted a limited federal government that mainly dealt with the USA's interaction with foreign nations, international trade and disputes between the several states. Education was not something they saw as a federal area

 

[Green Man]

so it is your position as long as congress claims something promotes the "General Welfare" that allows congress to avoid the 10th Amendment and do whatever it wants

Do you think that is consistent with what the founders intended?

Remember, Congress has no power to promote the general welfare. Nobody can find any text in the constitution that states as much.

 

[haymarket]

I disagree. everything I have read about the constitution suggested that the founders wanted a limited federal government that mainly dealt with the USA's interaction with foreign nations, international trade and disputes between the several states. Education was not something they saw as a federal area

and that is what we have - a limited government. So its all good. If education is not something that promotes the general welfare I have no idea what under the sun would qualify for that honor.

 

[TurtleDude]

and that is what we have - a limited government. So its all good. If education is not something that promotes the general welfare I have no idea what under the sun would qualify for that honor.

that's not the issue. the issue is did the founders intend congress have unlimited power as long as congress stated it was for the "general welfare"? the obvious answer is no.

 

[haymarket]

Remember, Congress has no power to promote the general welfare. Nobody can find any text in the constitution that states as much.

Several of the Founders did. And the US SUpreme Court did also. read and learn

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

 

[haymarket]

that's not the issue. the issue is did the founders intend congress have unlimited power as long as congress stated it was for the "general welfare"? the obvious answer is no.

You are using the fallacy of the false premise as it is not unlimited power.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are using the fallacy of the false premise as it is not unlimited power.

a fancy name to cover up the fact that the argument is specious?

there is nothing in the constitution that gave the federal government any power to act in the area of education.

 

[Green Man]

that's not the issue. the issue is did the founders intend congress have unlimited power as long as congress stated it was for the "general welfare"? the obvious answer is no.

Absolutely not. Look at the constitution. You will find no power to promote the general welfare. Only mercantilists/fascists "read" the constitution to contain such a power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Absolutely not. Look at the constitution. You will find no power to promote the general welfare. Only mercantilists/fascists "read" the constitution to contain such a power.

socialists, fascists, and other statists understand what the founders intended. so many of them dishonestly claim that what the founders wrote doesn't really mean what they intended. it is impossible to read all the documents surrounding the production of the Constitution and the BOR and pretend that the founders intended that education be a federal matter.

 

[KokomoJojo]

yes - and what is in the Constitution is open to interpretation. And not one Supreme Court decision in over 220 years agrees with your own personal interpretation of the powers of Congress.

That tells everyone that is it an extremist view of some fringe character which should be given not the slightest consideration of credibility.

just a fyi
I didnt read the decision nor do I know the specifics that you guys are talking about however if the supreme court ruled on something it will stand forever or until they rule differently.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Really? Where in the Constitution does it mandate low flow toilets? Yet is that not the law of the land as to what kind of toilet can be sold?

Where in the Constitution does it mandate fuel efficiency? Yet is that not the law of the land re how automobiles must be manufactured?

Where in the Constitution does it mandate that abortion be legal? Yet is that not the law of the land?

Where in the Constitution does it mandate that people must acquire healthcare insurance? Yet is that not the law of the land?

that is precisely what you see in england under the monarchy governing the kings 'realm'. (for those who want to look into it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I disagree. everything I have read about the constitution suggested that the founders wanted a limited federal government that mainly dealt with the USA's interaction with foreign nations, international trade and disputes between the several states. Education was not something they saw as a federal area

keep in mind that the UCA was created as a trading company, under the king which then reorganized as the USA under their own AOC which then created a sub corp called the US, which is ultimately what we today call the federal government.

The general welfare has it roots in "wealth". the common weal, pennsylvania I believe is still a commonwealth, in fact most states said or unsaid, so yes that is a state matter, and in the federal constitution with regard to the states watch9ing each others 6 and protecting their corporate intercourse.

Of course mission creep would extend that to looking up someones butt, and today no one seems to have the historical background to understand its origins or meanings and apply it everything and anything.

So the definition and why most people cannot find it is because they dont know what to look for.

Here it is.



Oh yeh and a "state" is properly an [E]state!

When they created the Estates here they dropped the "E", for reasons I have not been able to find out.




Its a wild ride when ye really dig in to see how they manipulated everything.

 

[haymarket]

a fancy name to cover up the fact that the argument is specious?

there is nothing in the constitution that gave the federal government any power to act in the area of education.

No - I just present the truth- your argument is based on a false premise that the power to provide for the general welfare is "unlimited power".
And I just have stated that there is indeed something in the Constitution which allows the federal government to act regarding education and its called providing for the general welfare. If education does not contribute to the general welfare of the nation - nothing does.

 

[Green Man]

socialists, fascists, and other statists understand what the founders intended. so many of them dishonestly claim that what the founders wrote doesn't really mean what they intended. it is impossible to read all the documents surrounding the production of the Constitution and the BOR and pretend that the founders intended that education be a federal matter.

Absolutely. If one looks at article I, section 8, in which Congress' powers are listed, you will see the following powers:

- to tax
- to borrow money
- to regulate commerce among the state, with foreign nations, and with the indian tribes
- to establish uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies
- to coin money and establish a standard of weights and measures
- to punish counterfeiters
- to establish post offices and post roads
- to establish patent and copyright
- to establish courts inferior to the supreme court
- to define and punish piracy and offenses against the law of nations
- to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land & water
- to raise and support armies
- to provide a navy
- to make rules for the government of land & naval forces
- to provide for calling forth the militia
- to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia
- to legislate over the capitol
- to make laws required to do the above

No mention of education at all. Nada.

 

[Thoreau72]

Education does not promote the general welfare? :doh:shock::roll:

I do understand your point, but I also understand Barkman's point, that either the government is one of limited and enumerated powers, OR NOT.

Using the idea that creating the Department of Education promotes the general welfare, we could say that every citizen owning an automobile also promotes the GW, and a Depart of Vehicle Purchases would be in order. A slippery slope.

The empirical evidence over the years is that Dept of Education is unnecessary and wasted money, even though it gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling about just how 'civilized' we might be.

I see both sides of the argument.

Certainly there is no language in the Constitution authorizing the government to be involved in education or the Homeland Security business. What to do?

I don't know the answer.

 

[mac]

I rest my case

You should have rested it a long time ago.