Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 180

Thread: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

  1. #51
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i wish the 10 th amendment got as much attention
    oh it does but on a side note

    After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.
    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and in case you don't trust wikipedia, here are links cited in the passage

    House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
    18, 21 Aug. 1789Annals 1:761, 767--68

    [18 Aug.]

    The 9th proposition, in the words following, was considered, "The powers not delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively."

    Mr. Tucker proposed to amend the proposition, by prefixing to it "all powers being derived from the people." He thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the Constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution."

    Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and, after full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.
    Amendment X: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

    and here is a article from the atlantic arguing againist revisionism in the tenth ammendment

    Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights' - Garrett Epps - The Atlantic

  2. #52
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    oh it does but on a side note



    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and in case you don't trust wikipedia, here are links cited in the passage



    Amendment X: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

    and here is a article from the atlantic arguing againist revisionism in the tenth ammendment

    Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights' - Garrett Epps - The Atlantic

    implied powers?

    the 10th amendment of the constitution is clear, "all powers not delegated".......this is what is the statement which has been ratified by the states......says.

    the statement you posted is the amendments debate of congress to the constitution, however the 10th amendment of the word expressly, was not taken up..it was rejected.

    as to your statement about madison......please who wrote it?.......name them please!

    if you read Madison and Hamilton, on the bill of rights, both men were against it, and Hamilton called it dangerous, ...why??... becuase both men stated rights should not be listed, becuase to list rights would be to limit rights.

    both men stated that the constitution of the convention was a bill of rights itself, .....................because it limited government powers to those specifically enumerated.


    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

    “[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

    “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

    Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

    “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

    Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

    No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

    In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.


    federalist 84 Hamilton---I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.



    if the government had implied powers as you say, then they would be unlimited, and the constitution has Hamilton states would NOT be its own bill of rights.

    our government is to be limited as to not be able to infringe on the rights of the people, the founders knew an unlimited government would become tyrannical.
    Last edited by Master PO; 10-09-13 at 11:31 PM.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    “Secretary [of Defense Chuck] Hagel assured the service leaders that he would work closely with them to address these challenges, and support the service members and families impacted by these disruptions,” it continued....."
    Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops - Washington Times


    The conservative Washington Times seems to be trying real hard to make it political.

    So where's the "press release"? Do you have a link the actual press release or should we just assume the WT is politicizing the families of fallen soldiers?
    Obama's/Harry Reid's partial government shutdown is all political and pure bull crap. The federal government has the money to run the government at 100 % until October 17th.

    The Obama administration has been very selective on what would be shutdown and who would be sent home with pay. The Park Police are spending more money keeping veterans and American citizens from memorials and parks and allowing illegal aliens to have a rally on the CLOSED National Mall demanding amnesty, citizenship and free stuff than if the memorials and parks were open.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    implied powers?

    the 10th amendment of the constitution is clear, "all powers not delegated".......this is what is the statement which has been ratified by the states......says.

    the statement you posted is the amendments debate of congress to the constitution, however the 10th amendment of the word expressly, was not taken up..it was rejected.

    as to your statement about madison......please who wrote it?.......name them please!

    if you read Madison and Hamilton, on the bill of rights, both men were against it, and Hamilton called it dangerous, ...why??... becuase both men stated rights should not be listed, becuase to list rights would be to limit rights.

    both men stated that the constitution of the convention was a bill of rights itself, .....................because it limited government powers to those specifically enumerated.


    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

    “[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

    “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

    Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

    “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

    Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

    No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

    In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.


    federalist 84 Hamilton---I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
    i provided my sources, madison supported the idea of implied powers.

    and this is the website's source
    The Founders' Constitution
    Volume 5, Amendment X, Document 6
    Amendment X: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
    The University of Chicago Press

    Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. "History of Congress." 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834--56.
    and the tenth ammendment does not limit implied powers.here is what the 10th amendment says in its entirity.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    and here is what the articles of confederation, the thing that proceeded the constitution, says about the same issue.

    Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
    notice the word i underlined in the articles of confederation, Expressly, is not writian anywhere in the tenth amendment, nor is the word "explicitly" anywhere in the tenth amendment.

    Madison was against a amendment that limited the powers of federal government to those that are "explicitly delegated" to it.

    Mr. Tucker proposed to amend the proposition, by prefixing to it "all powers being derived from the people." He thought this a better place to make this assertion than the introductory clause of the Constitution, where a similar sentiment was proposed by the committee. He extended his motion also, to add the word "expressly," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated by this Constitution."

    Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia. He remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and, after full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form.
    so is maddison right? is he wrong? or do you deny that my source is accurate?

    Amendment X: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

  5. #55
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    i provided my sources, madison supported the idea of implied powers.

    and this is the website's source


    and the tenth ammendment does not limit implied powers.here is what the 10th amendment says in its entirity.



    and here is what the articles of confederation, the thing that proceeded the constitution, says about the same issue.



    notice the word i underlined in the articles of confederation, Expressly, is not writian anywhere in the tenth amendment, nor is the word "explicitly" anywhere in the tenth amendment.

    Madison was against a amendment that limited the powers of federal government to those that are "explicitly delegated" to it.



    so is maddison right? is he wrong? or do you deny that my source is accurate?

    Amendment X: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
    really..here's madison on the powers of the federal government.

    federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal delegated powers]will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

  6. #56
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    really..here's madison on the powers of the federal government.

    federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal delegated powers]will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
    Opinions on the subject differed. There were quite a few people involved in the process, after all.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    really..here's madison on the powers of the federal government.

    federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal delegated powers]will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
    So are you implying Madison was a hypocrite?

    what date was federalist 45 written on.

    my source quoting madison's support of implied powers was dated from the 18th of august 1789.

    and i noticed you have yet to prove why my quoted source is wrong or how federalist 54 reject my claim.

  8. #58
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    So are you implying Madison was a hypocrite?

    what date was federalist 45 written on.

    my source quoting madison's support of implied powers was dated from the 18th of august 1789.

    and i noticed you have yet to prove why my quoted source is wrong or how federalist 54 reject my claim.
    Jan 26th 1788

    what you posted was debate in congress, the founders debated a lot of things including building a Federal university, --however it was rejected.


    three examples of Madison's rigid hewing to the twin pillars of legitimacy and enumerated powers upon which he helped erect the temple of American government. In the Report of 1800, Congressman Madison wrote:

    In all the co-temporary discussions and comments, which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground, that the powers not given to the government, were withheld from it; and that if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment [now the present 10th Amendment] now a part of the Constitution...."

    Some six years earlier, when examining a bill proposing the appropriation of money for relief of political refugees from Santo Domingo, James Madison stood firmly, once again, in defense of the principle of enumerated powers. He could not, Madison stated, "undertake to lay [his] finger on that article of the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    Finally, in 1817, President James Madison vetoed a measure passed by both houses of Congress that funded a program of comprehensive improvements to infrastructure. In a statement accompanying his veto, Madison set forth his objections thereto (as required by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution), declaring that "the legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

  9. #59
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Opinions on the subject differed. There were quite a few people involved in the process, after all.
    what opinions, are you referring to, who knows more about the constitution and the bill of rights then Madison.

    since he laid the foundation of the constitution, before the constitutional convention, and wrote the bill of rights.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    Jan 26th 1788

    what you posted was debate in congress, the founders debated a lot of things including building a Federal university, --however it was rejected.


    three examples of Madison's rigid hewing to the twin pillars of legitimacy and enumerated powers upon which he helped erect the temple of American government. In the Report of 1800, Congressman Madison wrote:

    In all the co-temporary discussions and comments, which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground, that the powers not given to the government, were withheld from it; and that if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment [now the present 10th Amendment] now a part of the Constitution...."

    Some six years earlier, when examining a bill proposing the appropriation of money for relief of political refugees from Santo Domingo, James Madison stood firmly, once again, in defense of the principle of enumerated powers. He could not, Madison stated, "undertake to lay [his] finger on that article of the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    Finally, in 1817, President James Madison vetoed a measure passed by both houses of Congress that funded a program of comprehensive improvements to infrastructure. In a statement accompanying his veto, Madison set forth his objections thereto (as required by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution), declaring that "the legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."
    then how can you explain his opposition to a amendment to the constitution that limited the powers of the federal government to only those that are "explicitly" delegated? if what you are saying about Madison's position on enumerated powers, then he would have agreed with the amendment i quoted.

    and why did madison not try to undo the damage done to his beloved vision of the constitution by fellow Virginian delegate, founding father, and supreme court john Marshall.

    this is a excerpt from Justice Marshalls opinion from the landmark case Mcculloch V Maryland, and it relates to the 10th amendment.

    Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.
    McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

    is justice marshall wrong?

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •