• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

ernst barkmann said:
excuse me, the 14th amendment is what?

it makes state adhere to the bill of rights........the bill of rights are a limitation placed on governments............the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clause placed on the government.........or have you missed reading that
Click to expand...

still waiting on your refutation
he cited the supreme court opinion
show us why it should not be found valid

while i will wait for your reply i will not hold my breath awaiting what is certain to be a bogus effort
 
justabubba said:
still waiting on your refutation
he cited the supreme court opinion
show us why it should not be found valid

while i will wait for your reply i will not hold my breath awaiting what is certain to be a bogus effort
Click to expand...

right to property

right to association

right to commerce

right to contract

all known rights, which the bill of right places a restriction on the government from violating.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution does not support slavery,...no where will you find it says that.

the constitution is a limitation placed on government.
Click to expand...
Again, you keep ignoring our HISTORY. Dred Scott decision shows it WAS legal, the court found that before and after 1856 that Blacks, free or slaves, had NO citizenship rights....and states could not be interfered with in creating laws protecting slave ownership.

It was based upon views held by the founders.
 
ernst barkmann said:
right to property

right to association

right to commerce

right to contract

all known rights, which the bill of right places a restriction on the government from violating.
Click to expand...

refute the supreme court decision, which decision was provided for you
until then, you have nothing but more inane blabber
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you keep ignoring our HISTORY. Dred Scott decision shows it WAS legal, the court found that before and after 1856 that Blacks, free or slaves, had NO citizenship rights....and states could not be interfered with in creating laws protecting slave ownership.

It was based upon views held by the founders.
Click to expand...

let me show you something.........

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

james madsion--"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

 
Deuce said:
My God, low-wage workers using their freedom of association to attempt to bargain for an economic situation better than "work 90 hours a week if you want to eat."

The horror.
Click to expand...
Or they can realize that minimum wage isn't going to pay the bills, and move up in life.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm sorry, are you changing the topic?

Note: The court recognizes LIMITATIONS on "free speech".
Click to expand...

there are no limitation on the right as a whole for the people...this is false.

a person can have his right curtail if he commits a crime OR ON OTHERS PROPERTY, however the people cannot have their Right curtail, becuase the government desires it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
let me show you something.........

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

james madsion--"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Click to expand...
Non sequitur, we are debating slavery....and you bring up speech and religious freedoms.

Madison was a slave owner.
 
ernst barkmann said:
there are no limitation on the right as a whole for the people...this is false.
Click to expand...
BS, the US population has many restrictions on "free speech", you cannot yell fire in a theater, you cannot libel, those are not protected by the constitution.

a person can have his right curtail if he commits a crime OR ON OTHERS PROPERTY, however the people cannot have their Right curtail, becuase the government desires it.
Click to expand...
The unrestricted "right" to say anything does not exist, not all speech is constitutional protected.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you keep ignoring our HISTORY. Dred Scott decision shows it WAS legal, the court found that before and after 1856 that Blacks, free or slaves, had NO citizenship rights....and states could not be interfered with in creating laws protecting slave ownership.

It was based upon views held by the founders.
Click to expand...

blacks before the civil war, were no considered people, but property.........this is why the get the 3/5 argument. in the constitution. over representation.

the Constitution , giveS only certain powers to the federal government, if the federal convention would have including freeing slaves, ...no constitution would ne3ver have been ratified.


only 3 stateS wanted slavering during the signing of the DOI
 
justabubba said:
refute the supreme court decision, which decision was provided for you
until then, you have nothing but more inane blabber
Click to expand...

right to property

right to association

right to commerce

right to contract

are these rights under the constitution?...yes they are.......is government prohibited from creating laws concerning them...yes they are.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm sorry, are you changing the topic?

Note: The court recognizes LIMITATIONS on "free speech".
Click to expand...

sorry , only when a person commits a crime or something which could violate a right of another person , can his right be limited.......the right of the people, like free speech for every citizen, cannot be limited by the government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
blacks before the civil war, were no considered people, but property.........this is why the get the 3/5 argument. in the constitution. over representation.
Click to expand...
Moot, they were not represented, they had no vote.

the Constitution , giveS only certain powers to the federal government, if the federal convention would have including freeing slaves, ...no constitution would ne3ver have been ratified.


only 3 stateS wanted slavering during the signing of the DOI
Click to expand...
Another pointless comment, slavery was legal before and after Dred Scott, in spite of your claim that the Constitution did not support it. Dread was based on founding documents.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry , only when a person commits a crime or something which could violate a right of another person , can his right be limited.......the right of the people, like free speech for every citizen, cannot be limited by the government.
Click to expand...
You are not operating in this universe, in this country. The constitution does not give you unrestricted speech. You do not understand the constitution.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Moot, they were not represented, they had no vote.

Another pointless comment, slavery was legal before and after Dred Scott, in spite of your claim that the Constitution did not support it. Dread was based on founding documents.
Click to expand...

blacks were property and not considered people.

the 3/5 th argument......the south wanted slaves to count a 1 person, the north stated, if they are a person, then they cant be slaves, the south stated slaves were property.

a compromise was reached, slaves would be 3/5 of a person .

where in the founding documents do you find slavery supported,...no where..in fact the importation of slaves is illegal after 1808 in the constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
false flag, here....never stated religion...........why are you saying untruths here?
Click to expand...
Achem...


ernst barkmann said:
l That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that,....
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are not operating in this universe, in this country. The constitution does not give you unrestricted speech. You do not understand the constitution.
Click to expand...

do you understand what i am stating ...no.you dont.....the right to free speech....meaning the right for every citiznen...cannot be abridged by the government.

meaning the government cannot make a law for every citizen, to limit there speech..its unconstitutional.

if you commit a crime or do something which infringes on other rights, when government can curtail your rights........
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The chip manufacturing industry produces a lot of toxic waste. These industries were deemed to be not wanted in the US. Even Jobs told the President he wouldn't/couldn't move many of his jobs back to the US due to the regulatory environment. When it becomes more important not to have particular industries in the country, there will be fewer jobs in those industries...
Click to expand...

Are you thinking we no longer make TWT's and Magnetrons, televisions, cell phones, etc. because of a toxic waste issue? I believe it is offshore now merely because labor in the third world is dirt cheap. And it would have been less expensive to solve the pollution problem and keep jobs in USA than to send these jobs overseas. When we made our own chips (UTC owned Mostek back then) for classified systems, the fines for disposing of the waste were not really eating into profits that much.

I spent almost 11 years working on synthetic aperture radar and nuclear launch control systems before I went purely into software for a much bigger payday. You cannot begin to imagine the information we shared with Western Europe manufacturers, Canada, and through lack of reverse engineering protections USSR and China too. ;-(
 
ernst barkmann said:
blacks were property and not considered people.

the 3/5 th argument......the south wanted slaves to count a 1 person, the north stated, if they are a person, then they cant be slaves, the south stated slaves were property.

a compromise was reached, slaves would be 3/5 of a person .

where in the founding documents do you find slavery supported,...no where..in fact the importation of slaves is illegal after 1808 in the constitution.
Click to expand...
This argument is getting stupid, you are ignoring Dred Scott. This is a continuing issue, ignoring history. You first claimed the constitution did not support slavery, I show you Dred...you ignore it and continue to ask where is the finding supported.....

Good grief.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This argument is getting stupid, you are ignoring Dred Scott. This is a continuing issue, ignoring history. You first claimed the constitution did not support slavery, I show you Dred...you ignore it and continue to ask where is the finding supported.....



Good grief.
Click to expand...

can the government make a law, which takes away a right of all of the people.........no!

can the government make a law which takes away a right of a person, who has violated the law...yes.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you understand what i am stating ...no.you dont.....the right to free speech....meaning the right for every citiznen...cannot be abridged by the government.
Click to expand...
Either this is a semantic game, or you just do not understand constitutional rights. You do not have unrestricted protected speech.

meaning the government cannot make a law for every citizen, to limit there speech..its unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
No, that is not the meaning, Their...OUR speech has constitution protected limits.

if you commit a crime or do something which infringes on other rights, when government can curtail your rights........
Click to expand...
Meaning that you don't have unlimited protected speech under our constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom