• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

ttwtt78640 said:
That is a valid point, but to take court action requires standing, which it appears to belong only to the states (per the 10th amendment). Since the states now get up to half of their education funding from "free" federal transfer payments then they likely feel that the federal mandates that accompany that funding are a good deal, on balance, and thus will not sue.
Click to expand...

I find it very very very hard to believe that not a single state out of fifty or not a single district out of the tens of thousands that exist would not have found an issue worth taking before the Court.
 
haymarket said:
As was explained to you before - and I will carefully take time to explain it again - yes we are talking about the Constitution. Yes you were asked to read it. And you still came up with your rather radical and extremist view of the powers of Congress. As such - continuing with the discussion of the Constitution and what you found there - it is entirely appropriate to introduce the official government baranch which has the sole power to interpret the Constitution for the nation.

The Supreme Court has no decision in 220 years which agrees with your position.

Your position is obviously without any Constitutional merit or it would have come up with even one decision in over two centuries.

As such, it is perfectly proper to introduce the role of the Court to show definitively that your view has nothing at all to do with the realities of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


sorry hay......you stated clearly "actual constitution"

i showed you what is says clearly by posting sections of it, and jefferson says the same things i said......and that threw a money wrench into you statement, and you ran to the court, as your saving grace.
 
ernst barkmann said:
really?, so your saying Madison is wrong, and america was created with a national government? ....since you believe the government is supposed to be in the life's liberty and property of the people.
Click to expand...

Do you remember just the other day when you were on your crusade Titanic going downwards to the bottom clinging to the falsehood that it took a majority of states to pass a law in the Senate and you quoted Madison as proof of it?

Yup - Madison was wrong. His opinion is not that of a god who cannot make errors. And I just showed you one of them.
 
haymarket said:
I find it very very very hard to believe that not a single state out of fifty or not a single district out of the tens of thousands that exist would not have found an issue worth taking before the Court.
Click to expand...

There have been many federal education "issues" taken up but not the basic right issue. Money speaks very loudly indeed.

EDIT: The national 55mph speed limit law was rejected by only one state, since they calculated the loses in state/county employee travel time to exceed the gain from keeping their federal highway maintanance funding.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sorry hay......you stated clearly "actual constitution"

i showed you what is says clearly by posting sections of it, and jefferson says the same things i said......and that threw a money wrench into you statement, and you ran to the court, as your saving grace.
Click to expand...

We are debating the actual Constitution. :doh Is there a second one I do not know about? :shock:;)
 
calamity said:
The Constitution defines Blacks as 3/5ths of a person too. What's your point?
Click to expand...

wrong, i does not say blacks, it states those in slavery, and it was enforced by law, until slavery ended, .....and becuase of that ..........the 3/5th clause is no longer valid.

so side tracking the issue, does not help, you need to stop with the ......emotional appeal.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There have been many federal education "issues" taken up but not the basic right issue. Money speaks very loudly indeed.
Click to expand...

I find it very very very hard to accept that educations issues have been taken before the Court in the last thirty plus years but no single case found a way to make the argument that conservatives make about the department itself being unconstitutional. Its just absurd in the extreme. After all, how long did it take to get a court test on the health care law?

I suspect strongly that you all know the Court finds it perfectly kosher but cling to the fiction just the same as a conservative cause celebre which rallies the troops.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you want me to make you look bad again.....yes or no...?

if yes, i can repost all of the link of your statements.
Click to expand...

By all means step up to the plate and go for strike three.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, i does not say blacks, it states those in slavery, and it was enforced by law, until slavery ended, .....and becuase of that ..........the 3/5th clause is no longer valid.

so side tracking the issue, does not help, you need to stop with the ......emotional appeal.
Click to expand...

Was there any examples of white slavery in North America at the time when the constitution was written?
 
haymarket said:
Do you remember just the other day when you were on your crusade Titanic going downwards to the bottom clinging to the falsehood that it took a majority of states to pass a law in the Senate and you quoted Madison as proof of it?

Yup - Madison was wrong. His opinion is not that of a god who cannot make errors. And I just showed you one of them.
Click to expand...

you have been shown in error in you thinking many times, your continued delusion, and creating a red herring will not work.
 
calamity said:
The Constitution defines Blacks as 3/5ths of a person too. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Wow, so the Constitution says what you want it to say? Please provide for us the clause in the Constitution that "defines Blacks as 3/5ths of a person"
 
ernst barkmann said:
you have been shown in error in you thinking many times, your continued delusion, and creating a red herring will not work.
Click to expand...

By all means please present one such claim that I made that was shown to be factually in error or wrong.

I already presented one factual claim that you made that was clearly in error. its your turn.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry again you fail.......please state a .....yes or no...
Click to expand...

Go for it EB. Go for it. I would hope that all people are ready to provide verifiable evidence for their claims . So please do so.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, in fact this is true....i only eluded to black ,becuase i knew he was only talking about them.

so again your correct.
Click to expand...

I was not making a statement of fact, I was asking a question.

Was the constitution specific in its definition of a slave? Was it being colorblind in its definition?
 
Q
Conservative said:
The Constitution was amended to add race as a civil right. you seem to forget that just like you forget basic civics as well as history showing the foundation upon which this country was built. Seems you want to eliminate 50 independent states and make one large central govt. providing for everything you want. Is that really your goal? If it weren't for liberalism maybe those blue states would have more cash
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd prefer to lose a dozen states, all of them South of I-40. But, other than that, I'm not the one griping about the government doing its job like you wingnuts.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I was not making a statement of fact, I was asking a question.

Was the constitution specific in its definition of a slave? Was it being colorblind in its definition?
Click to expand...

i give you praise any way, because you knew there were, i believe Washington had whites slaves working for him.

as to whites being counted has 3/5ths i have not researched this.

but remember that the 3/5ths is not about racism, its about taxes and representation.

people dont want to pay taxes, but they want as much representation as they can get.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i give you praise any way, because you knew there were, i believe Washington had whites slaves working for him.

as to whites being counted has 3/5ths i have not researched this.

but remember that the 3/5ths is not about racism, its about taxes and representation.

people dont want to pay taxes, but they want as much representation as they can get.
Click to expand...

That 3/5ths intent was about representation, but you have admit that it was also used by certain people who actually believed in racial superiority and objected to giving slaves their freedom.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That 3/5ths intent was about representation, but you have admit that it was also used by certain people who actually believed in racial superiority and objected to giving slaves their freedom.
Click to expand...

Three fifths was a way for southerners to have their cake and eat it too. They got additional representation without having to acknowledge the full humanity of their slaves.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom