• 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!

Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You

Gee, that's not what it says.

Show where it says Congress, or the POTUS can have a referendum on anything... here's the text, Artical I, section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

XII amendment:

Article XII
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.

See how that works?
 
Show where it says Congress, or the POTUS can have a referendum on anything... here's the text, Artical I, section 8:



XII amendment:



See how that works?

That post reveals a extremely limited understanding of constitutional law, interpretation, and precedent.

As if any word or concept not specifically mentioned in the constitution is therefore not covered by it.
 
That post reveals a extremely limited understanding of constitutional law, interpretation, and precedent.

As if any word or concept not specifically mentioned in the constitution is therefore not covered by it.

You seem to think that if it's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it's ok. If you read the constitution you will find that it's exactly opposite of that faulty thinking. Read it and learn.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
You seem to think that if it's not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, it's ok. If you read the constitution you will find that it's exactly opposite of that faulty thinking. Read it and learn.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I'm saying to don't really understand the complexities of constitutional law, interpretation and precedent.

I'm saying your view of the U.S. Constitution, the direct and implied powers and responsibilities, is simplistic and naive.

I'm saying your posts and Katie Abrams statements indicate some big misconceptions about our Constitution and the mechanisms of our government.

I'm saying both of you need to brush up on the basic civics you (hopefully) learned in high school.

Can I be any more clear about what I'm saying?

BTW -- since I said nothing about my personal view of the Constitutional powers of the legislative branch, how in the hell would you know what I 'seem to think'. Do you read minds?

Why don't you ponder this one: In our history, when the federal legislature oversteps and enacts laws that violate the constitution in some manner, how is this usually remedied? (Hint: Checks and balances)
 
Slavery WAS Constitutional until the 14th amendment was passed. I'm not saying it was right, just Constitutional.... that is why we have the amendment process, to update the Constitution to reflect changing conditions and societal views.

Read the Thirteenth Amendment, please.
 
I don't agree. I do not wear a conservative label because I don't want to be identified with the rabid self proclaimed "conservatives" who are nothing more than neocon or Republican lap dogs.

I lean left or right depending on the issue which is why I wear moderate, but make no mistake, I am a social conservative for the most part.

I don't consider myself to be a Republican lap dog. I call myself a Conservative and am registered Republican, because Conservatism and the Republican party best represents my belief is what is right and what is wrong. It has nothing to do with Conservatives, or Republicans always doing the right thing. Afterall, we are talking about politicians.
 
Show where it says Congress, or the POTUS can have a referendum on anything... here's the text, Artical I, section 8:



XII amendment:



See how that works?


Ummm.....this is the Twelfth Amendment:

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You're quoting the Tenth.
 
It's not about getting nasty -- but when someone says something like her 'dismantling of the country' statement -- I want to know what she means. The same questions asked by MSNBC (and only them so far) came to mind. WTF are you talking about, lady?

What she means, is the obvious power grab by the Libbos. If they control everything, then they can force to submit to their will. It's the only strategy they have left, since the country has rejected Liberalism for the past 40 odd years. They can't persuade people to accept Liberalism, so they're going to force people to accept Liberalism.

Anyone want to start a pool on which industry will the next to be nationalized? I say the trucking industry.
 
Can I be any more clear about what I'm saying?

No.

You can't be any more wrong, either.

the Constitution does not permit federal health care.

You will notice that a similar acknowledgement was made by Thomas Jefferson about federal spending for public education in his second Inaugural, and he therefore petitioned Congress to write an Amendment permitting federal funding for public schools.

Congress agreed federal spending on public education was not allowed, Congress did not pass an amendment for same, and hence federal funding of education is also still unconstitutional.

That the courts have refused to correctly interpret this doesn't mean federal spending for public education has become constitutional, it means the republic has become corrupt.

Federalized health care is another symptom of the corruption of our nation.
 
Read the Thirteenth Amendment, please.

My bad... the 14th gave teeth to the 13th as it gave the slaves rights to citizenship and all of the rights that go with it.

The point of the post that you are responding to was that slavery was legal and constitutional until an amendment changed the constitution.
 
What she means, is the obvious power grab by the Libbos. If they control everything, then they can force to submit to their will. It's the only strategy they have left, since the country has rejected Liberalism for the past 40 odd years. They can't persuade people to accept Liberalism, so they're going to force people to accept Liberalism.

Anyone want to start a pool on which industry will the next to be nationalized? I say the trucking industry.

By 'power grab', do you mean the democratic national elections? Because, if I'm not mistaken, they happen every two years.

You and vicchio with your silly conspiracy theories. You realize this reads like a bad James Bond plot. "Submit to their will"? Invasion of the Pinko Body Snatchers??

:2funny:

And, just for laughs...

Pray tell, which industry has been permanently nationalized since Obama's been in office?

I mean, when you say 'next industry', I'd love to know which ones you think have already been taken over by the government.
 
By 'power grab', do you mean the democratic national elections? Because, if I'm not mistaken, they happen every two years.

You and vicchio with your silly conspiracy theories. You realize this reads like a bad James Bond plot. "Submit to their will"? Invasion of the Pinko Body Snatchers??


When I say, "power grab", I mean the socialization of private industries.


Pray tell, which industry has been permanently nationalized since Obama's been in office?

I mean, when you say 'next industry', I'd love to know which ones you think have already been taken over by the government.


There's not a car czar? A pay czar? Yeah, it's a power grab, all right.
 
When I say, "power grab", I mean the socialization of private industries.

Can you name one private industry that was nationalized? (hint...the catchword is in the question)



There's not a car czar? A pay czar? Yeah, it's a power grab, all right.

Ok, I guess we can just ignore your buddy Bush's czarz right? And I guess we can also ignore that some of these "czars" have dual roles, and have been confirmed right? And then can we also ignore that the "czars" have been in our system now for decades?
 
My bad... the 14th gave teeth to the 13th as it gave the slaves rights to citizenship and all of the rights that go with it.

The point of the post that you are responding to was that slavery was legal and constitutional until an amendment changed the constitution.

I know.

I once had a discussion with someone who wanted to repeal the 13th Amendment, and who complained loudly that it violated a man's right to his own wages....a good friend of mine, but I let him put out enough rope before I pointed out that I was sure he meant the 16th Amendment. He was embarassed. :2wave:
 
By 'power grab', do you mean the democratic national elections? Because, if I'm not mistaken, they happen every two years.

You and vicchio with your silly conspiracy theories. You realize this reads like a bad James Bond plot. "Submit to their will"? Invasion of the Pinko Body Snatchers??

:2funny:

And, just for laughs...

Pray tell, which industry has been permanently nationalized since Obama's been in office?

I mean, when you say 'next industry', I'd love to know which ones you think have already been taken over by the government.


Which industries that the Messiah has nationalized has he released?

Answer: None.
 
Can you name one private industry that was nationalized? (hint...the catchword is in the question)

Auto industry, banks, and now the medical industry. It ain't rocket science. How many companies does the government own interest in, now?





Ok, I guess we can just ignore your buddy Bush's czarz right? And I guess we can also ignore that some of these "czars" have dual roles, and have been confirmed right? And then can we also ignore that the "czars" have been in our system now for decades?

I didn't agree with Bush doing and I damn sure disagree with PBO having 30 plus czars, who only answer to the president. Do agree that one person, answerable only to the president should tell coporations how much they can pay their people? Where's that going to end?
 
Can you name one private industry that was nationalized? (hint...the catchword is in the question)





Ok, I guess we can just ignore your buddy Bush's czarz right? And I guess we can also ignore that some of these "czars" have dual roles, and have been confirmed right? And then can we also ignore that the "czars" have been in our system now for decades?

So, you're arguing that since you agree that Bush did something bad, (as did Clinton, as did the Bush before, as did Reagan) that it's just dandy that your Messiah does even more of the unconstitutional same?
 
Auto industry, banks, and now the medical industry. It ain't rocket science. How many companies does the government own interest in, now?

Not rocket science, it's called having a basic understand of business practices and economics.

Owning an interest in, propping up, managing a corporate bankruptcy is not nationalization or socialism. It's big government sustaining major industries through a recession in attempt to avoid total collapse. I think it's important that you understand the difference.

The formula is simple -- when 1 million or more Americans would be laid off as a direct result of a large company or group of companies going under, the government will intervene in a (hopefully) smart and pragmatic way to prevent the massive and devastating poverty and crime we saw during the Great Depression.

You want to debate discuss the approach taken by both the Bush and Obama administration. Fine. But don't embarrass yourself by calling it Nationalization or Socialism.


I didn't agree with Bush doing and I damn sure disagree with PBO having 30 plus czars, who only answer to the president. Do agree that one person, answerable only to the president should tell coporations how much they can pay their people? Where's that going to end?

If I'm reading you correctly -- companies can pay their execs whatever they want as soon as they pay back government loans and get back on their feet. That's how it should work -- but the corps have found loopholes and continue to pay big salaries.

I do not like the phrase 'to big to fail'. But, if GM went under and laid off its entire factory work force, stopped paying its suppliers who then lay off their work force, these unemployed people stop paying their bills, stop buying good and services, and entire local economy goes into collapse.

The situation with AIG is bit more complicated.

The whole situation stinks. Having to bail out CEO's with Ivy League MBA's -- the best and the brightest. Bull****. The greedy and arrogant. But the ripple effect of depression with poverty, homelessness, and crime is worth avoiding. IMO.
 
I did not watch the CNN bit, but did watch Hardball. Lawrence O'Donnell made some very good points, that in summary this woman is just grossly uneducated and ill informed. I have no doubt that this woman is probably even unaware of what Medicare is.

She is a Nice Lady! She is propbably a bit ignorant but we do not know nor does it matter what her education level is. The bottom line is that Lady Katie appears to be Nice Lady !!!

15 minutes = up!!
 
Damn that pesky Tenth Amendment.

No, we can't have one until the Constitution is amended.




Damn that pesky Tenth Amendment.

No, we can't do that legally until the Constitution is amended.




Okay, you can apparently agree with the guy that's wrong if you want. But I've read the Bill of Rights.

How does the Bill of Rights prohibit the financing of national health care. Remeber this bill involves the financing of national health care not that Senator Kennedy will be performing brain tumor operations.
 
Yes, I can play the game, because I can read the Tenth Amendment.

You can't read the Tenth Amendment, so you're losing the game.

how could I possibly be losing when I am right and I have the power and the glory of the Constitution behind me!!! LOL
 
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?

Who are you that thinks he has the cerebral powers to even think about challenging who I am on the political spectrum. Why don’t you stick with the topic at hand instead of throwing fecal matter into the fan because guess where your projectiles will go. You got it right back in your face.
 
Not rocket science, it's called having a basic understand of business practices and economics.

Owning an interest in, propping up, managing a corporate bankruptcy is not nationalization or socialism. It's big government sustaining major industries through a recession in attempt to avoid total collapse. I think it's important that you understand the difference.

Government owning controlling interest in and having the last say in the daily operations of a company is national socialism. Hate to break it to you.
 
Government owning controlling interest in and having the last say in the daily operations of a company is national socialism. Hate to break it to you.

Break it anyway you want, pal.

You don't know what you're talking about. What drive people with less than a basic understanding of politics and economics to these boards?

It's a mystery.

Nice job ignoring the rest of the post. TMI? or TMF?
 
Back
Top Bottom