• 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!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Sorry, but that doesn't address the points. We have no real idea how the founding fathers would have adapted as the years rolled on. We do know that in their time, they did adapt. They did move from their first effort. They did strengthen the federal government from their first effort. Like the evangelical, you're too fixed on a literal reading that ignores two hundred years of history. And just as they do, too often you misread the meaning and don't connect all the dots.

read the federalist papers which explain the constitution.

if you wish the links i will provide them for you, the only things which are not explained, are things which are self-evident, like ages of politicians, simple things which are very easy to understand.
 
bull, its what i said all along, no one should be force to be taught something which goes against what they have already been taught.

you on the other hand want to force your way of thinking on to other people, ..becuase you deem your valves to be right...and you dont have that authority

Leaving aside the fact that you have no clue what I want, let me point out, again, that I am not forcing anything, I am simply showing your source to be full of ****. When you depend on a source that is lying, that kinda refutes your point.
 
Leaving aside the fact that you have no clue what I want, let me point out, again, that I am not forcing anything, I am simply showing your source to be full of ****. When you depend on a source that is lying, that kinda refutes your point.


really?... i have said anything of a sexual nature should be introduced in the school system, however i know you want something of a sexual nature introduced, and force used.
 
really?... i have said anything of a sexual nature should be introduced in the school system, however i know you want something of a sexual nature introduced, and force used.

Still trying desperately to divert from your failed source I see.
 
only you would take that to mean royal....is it no wonder i have to explain things over and over.
Since that's what I was talking about and you didn't refute it, yes, I did.


Madison was not the loan signer of the Constitution not was everyone that signed it in agreement with his interpretation of it.
 
Since that's what I was talking about and you didn't refute it, yes, I did.


Madison was not the loan signer of the Constitution not was everyone that signed it in agreement with his interpretation of it.

well you didn't read very well did you now.

i said he's king, when its comes to the constitution and its meaning, compared to any which can be put against him.
 
read the federalist papers which explain the constitution.

if you wish the links i will provide them for you, the only things which are not explained, are things which are self-evident, like ages of politicians, simple things which are very easy to understand.

Read them and more. I know my limitations. I'm trying to get you to see yours.
 
Read them and more. I know my limitations. I'm trying to get you to see yours.

really then how do you get pass Madison's words in federalist 42 on commerce....when he states its a state problem of commerce....... not a business or people problem, show me where the constitution places a limit of people or business.
 
really then how do you get pass Madison's words in federalist 42 on commerce....when he states its a state problem of commerce....... not a business or people problem, show me where the constitution places a limit of people or business.

Because it isn't the end of the discussion. More came after that.
 
Because it isn't the end of the discussion. More came after that.

really so because the states were engaged in trade wars and barriers with each other this means the federal government was given power to regulate people and business?

where are people and business in the constitution limited?

so becuase Roscoe Filburn grew wheat to feed to his cattle this means the federal government should regulate all commerce...i think not!

Essay 42

Summary

Madison defends two more classes of powers afforded to the general government: the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations and the regulation of intercourse among the states. Madison argues that the national government must be able to conduct diplomacy and act independently on the international stage just as all other nations do. It must be able to send and receive ambassadors, make binding treaties, and punish piracy.

Madison also discusses the provision in the Constitution allowing for the importation of slaves until 1808, after which Congress may decide to ban importation. It is very clear that Madison strongly opposes slavery as an inhumane and barbaric practice. However, he argues that while it would have been better to abolish the trade immediately, it is nevertheless better to place some sort of time limit on the trade than to leave it completely unfettered forever.

Madison goes into considerable detail in describing and defending the many specific powers granted to the general government to manage relations between the states. Perhaps the most important is the authority of the national government to regulate interstate commerce. Madison argues that if the national government is not authorized to perform this role, tensions and “serious interruptions of the public tranquility” will result from states imposing various kinds of taxes and restrictions on goods coming from other states. <------trade bariers
 
Last edited:
really so because the states were engaged in trade wars and barriers with each other this means the federal government was given power to regulate people and business?

where are people and business in the constitution limited?

so becuase Roscoe Filburn grew wheat to feed to his cattle this means the federal government should regulate all commerce...i think not!

Again, read history. We have 200 years of it. I've given you a lot of it, so you have places to start.
 
Again, read history. We have 200 years of it. I've given you a lot of it, so you have places to start.


i have read you have not, ..your attempts of always saying something is something .........but producing no evidence is your usual MO.
 
i have read you have not, ..your attempts of always saying something is something .........but producing no evidence is your usual MO.

I've already produced evidence. I gave several links. That's evidence young man. You've merely ranted, failing to address the evidence. Once you do that, address the evidence, I'll move to the next batch. But the point is, like the fundamentalist, you're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your reading and / or explains changes along the way. The bet I can do is give you readings that explain this argument. I've done that. So, no more ranting. Tackle the evidence I gave you.
 
I've already produced evidence. I gave several links. That's evidence young man. You've merely ranted, failing to address the evidence. Once you do that, address the evidence, I'll move to the next batch. But the point is, like the fundamentalist, you're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your reading and / or explains changes along the way. The bet I can do is give you readings that explain this argument. I've done that. So, no more ranting. Tackle the evidence I gave you.


young man, no that does not apply to me... sorry white hair on my head.........you have not produced anything from the founders, who created the constitution and its commerce clause.

the federal government has only controlled commerce over people and business for 70 years, and you saying they were given that power by the founders in the constitution?

the founders gave no AUTHORITY to the federal government over the people.. except for pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors, and with the 16th amendment, ....tax cheats, .......the constitution is a limiting document on governments.
 
young man, no that does not apply tome.........you have not produced anything from the founders, who created the constitution and its commerce clause.

the federal government has only controlled commerce over people and business for 70 years, and you saying they were given that power by the founders in the constitution?

the founders gave no AUTHORITY to the federal government over the people.. except for pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors, and with the 16th amendment, ....tax cheats, .......the constitution is a limiting document on governments.

I don't have to produce anything from the founders. It didn't end there. It only began there. Over two hundred years, things don't stay static. Constantly I show you the movement, what led to what, what law allowed it, what written allowed it, the arguments used. Because history escapes you, and your view is too narrow, you miss reality. This is why I do are you to the fundamentalist religious zealot. You don't know enough to see your error, and your mind s closed to learning more, which I suspect is why you ignore the evidence I've given.
 
I don't have to produce anything from the founders. It didn't end there. It only began there. Over two hundred years, things don't stay static. Constantly I show you the movement, what led to what, what law allowed it, what written allowed it, the arguments used. Because history escapes you, and your view is too narrow, you miss reality. This is why I do are you to the fundamentalist religious zealot. You don't know enough to see your error, and your mind s closed to learning more, which I suspect is why you ignore the evidence I've given.

no it does end there... until there an amendment to the constitution thats delagates another power to congress, and since america founding, can you tell me what powers have been given to congress outside of the 18 besides .... taxes to income.

religion, how did that get in there?:confused:

the constitution is a very easy and understandable read, the founders stated clearly only delegated powers do the federal government have, and if not delegated it not a federal power

Amendment X

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.
 
Last edited:
no it does end there... until there an amendment to the constitution thats delagates another power to congress, and since america founding, can you tell me what powers have been given to congress outside of the 18 besides .... taxes to income.

There have been amendments. The courts refer to them. And I have already linked an answer to your question, you should have read it.
 
Gave you that and the 14th. There are several links. You really should read them.

sorry no..... this gives congress no power it talks about former slaves with rights privileges and immunities due process, no discrimination by governments.

people and representation.......but does not bestow any powers.
 
sorry no..... this gives congress no power it talks about former slaves with rights privileges and immunities due process, no discrimination by governments.

people and representation.......but does not bestow any powers.

But it does. Read the links. Your premise is largely false. And I did link explanations on that. I won't go any further until you catch up. Read the links.
 
But it does. Read the links. Your premise is largely false. And I did link explanations on that. I won't go any further until you catch up. Read the links.

since you claim to know it so well, explain a new power to me, for congress under the 14th...i am listening now, and waitng.
 
Back
Top Bottom