• 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!

What's Really Going on in Oregon! Taking Back the Narrative !

TheDemSocialist said:
:doh "In which the same should be for forts, etc etc".
Not only do they have the power to purchase and regulate the places they purchase from the state legislature, as long as the legislature has given consent, but the congress also has the power to regulate in the same manner US forts in the state, docks, other needed places.... Its essentially saying that congress has the power to regulate forts, dockyards, arsentals in the same matter in which they regulate land they have purchased form the states... Its not saying congress has the power to regulate "all places purchased by the states, but never mind it only applies to docks and arsenals"...

"The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" 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, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound, and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. It is under the like terms in the same [Volume 3, Page 234] clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction. And such was manifestly the avowed intention of those wise and great men who framed the constitution." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: United States v. Cornell

You have also ignored this as well: "And also here Hence: Article Four, section 3, clause 2... "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
Click to expand...

There's no need for us to go any further on this subject. You're stretching and I'm not buying it. The words are what the words are and you and I have both quoted them. It's pretty simple, and does not by any stretch of the imagination require so much discussion to justify what it says and what it doesn't say.

We disagree on this one. Let's just move on to the next one where me may get some common ground - like her statement that the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the Constitution, which we both agree is dead wrong.
 
I don't really know because I don't really care.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There's no need for us to go any further on this subject. You're stretching and I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...
Stretching it? Im not stretching it at all. Its clear as day and this clear portion of the constitution has constantly and constantly been upheld as this by the Supreme Court.

We disagree on this one. Let's just move on to the next one where me may get some common ground - like her statement that the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the Constitution, which we both agree is dead wrong.
Click to expand...
I have thought about this a little more and I think it means what you mean by "arbiters".
The Supreme Court does settle disputes, and does have ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution in regards to the disputes...
 
This is kinda what its all about...


Point...the Fed has a history of conducting land grabs without regard to people. Now I know...what Cenk was TRYING to do was dismiss the Bundy's. He failed. MISERABLY. What he did manage to clearly demonstrate is that the feds have a history of reckless disregard to land owners (and the difference between the Indians that got ****ed over and the Bundy's was that the Bundy's didnt back down). Now...if you resist the urge to turn this into a liberal vs conservative debate and if you allow yourself to let go of the hatred towards gun owners, militias, the Bundy's, and even about the entire Oregon 'occupation', you can look at THIS map...

federal-public-land-map.jpg

and get a sense as to why not just the Bundy's (who I truly have no love for and dont agree with their tactic in Oregon), but citizens throughout the west and many state governments, and governors are trying to find ways to wrest back control of land that really should be under state control.
 
WCH said:
From where we sit now, the SCOTUS should have never been given such power. The States should still have the ultimate decision making power.
Click to expand...

The states have proven over and over again that they abuse the rights of the people with tyranny of the majority of not reigned in by the SCOTUS with the Constitution.
 
WCH said:
The States were the original creators of the Constitution so, they should have the final say in any constitutional issue. Anything less should be considered judicial tyranny. IMHO
Click to expand...

The states didn't create anything. People created our Constitution and did so knowing that unlimited power in the hands of the states was a very dangerous thing. The people are what's important. Screw the states and their tyrannies.
 
WCH said:
The States were the original creators of the Constitution so, they should have the final say in any constitutional issue. Anything less should be considered judicial tyranny. IMHO
Click to expand...
The states creating the Constitution does not necessarily preclude their acceptance of judicial review.
 
roguenuke said:
The states didn't create anything. People created our Constitution and did so knowing that unlimited power in the hands of the states was a very dangerous thing. The people are what's important. Screw the states and their tyrannies.
Click to expand...

You think 9 people in Black robes is a better tyranny...I suppose.

They stole the power they now have. [also unconstitutional]
 
Somerville said:
There are some locals who don't much care for the Bundy boys and their acolytes




One more time, the 'Real Americans' have acted and spoken out without actually pondering the possible consequences
Click to expand...

Two schools of thought there. 1st-Perhaps if they were truly all indignant and stuff they would put THEIR money where there mouths now are. 2nd-their 'nation' was conquered long ago. Just as Indian tribes conquered other tribes (But we don't like to talk about that).
 
WCH said:
You think 9 people in Black robes is a better tyranny...I suppose.

They stole the power they now have. [also unconstitutional]
Click to expand...

Better since they are actually checked in their power by other ways in which the government operates.
 
Some clown posted this idiotic video on a facebook page that I am part of, its a music page, one for a fantastic internet radio station.

I asked her why she felt she had to spread kook crap where it isn't welcome. She went all RWNJ ballistic...her post got pulled from the page within minutes..
 
MrT said:
It is a good thing that they did "expand" their powers. The Constitution, being the 200+ year old document that it is, didn't exactly lay out of alot of information about how to handle airplanes, automobiles, or the internet.
Click to expand...
Yes, the founding fathers were complete idiots who never conceived technology would advance. :roll: What tired old memes liberals regurgitate ad nauseam.
 
 
beefheart said:
Some clown posted this idiotic video on a facebook page that I am part of, its a music page, one for a fantastic internet radio station.

I asked her why she felt she had to spread kook crap where it isn't welcome. She went all RWNJ ballistic...her post got pulled from the page within minutes..
Click to expand...
I first saw the video on the Bundy Family FB page. I never saw it before, or heard of the poster before. My suspicion is people are checking out the FB page, watching it, and now exporting it everywhere!
 
countryboy said:
Yes, the founding fathers were complete idiots who never conceived technology would advance. :roll: What tired old memes liberals regurgitate ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

There is a monumental difference between saying that the Founding Fathers knew that technology would advance and saying that the Founding Fathers built into the Constitution how to handle those, as yet, unfounded bits of technology.
 
countryboy said:
Colonial Americans would likely disagree. ;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so, seeing as how they were fighting "taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party was launched because the English companies - the tea industry, in particular - were not paying their fair share of taxes, and during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington himself supported a strong federal government...and I'd say he knew a bit more about what they were fighting for than you do.

But since colonial Americans were fighting (what was in their eyes) tyranny, let's address "tyranny" for a moment.

Every single time I see an American of any political stripe cry "tyranny" because the federal government's doing this or that, with a few notable exceptions (Jim Crow, internment camps, etc.), those Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about. When it comes to people complaining about how tyrannical the federal government is, I'd dearly LOVE to send them to a real tyranny for a year or so, then when they come home, ask them if they still think America's a tyranny.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, I don't think so, seeing as how they were fighting "taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party was launched because the English companies - the tea industry, in particular - were not paying their fair share of taxes, and during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington himself supported a strong federal government...and I'd say he knew a bit more about what they were fighting for than you do.

But since colonial Americans were fighting (what was in their eyes) tyranny, let's address "tyranny" for a moment.

Every single time I see an American of any political stripe cry "tyranny" because the federal government's doing this or that, with a few notable exceptions (Jim Crow, internment camps, etc.), those Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about. When it comes to people complaining about how tyrannical the federal government is, I'd dearly LOVE to send them to a real tyranny for a year or so, then when they come home, ask them if they still think America's a tyranny.
Click to expand...

Yes, soft tyranny is so much better than liberty. :roll:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Tell you what - when you grasp what liberty really is, come back and let us know.
Click to expand...

Massive government intrusion into literally every facet of our lives, is certainly not liberty.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, I don't think so, seeing as how they were fighting "taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party was launched because the English companies - the tea industry, in particular - were not paying their fair share of taxes, and during the Constitutional Convention, George Washington himself supported a strong federal government...and I'd say he knew a bit more about what they were fighting for than you do.

But since colonial Americans were fighting (what was in their eyes) tyranny, let's address "tyranny" for a moment.

Every single time I see an American of any political stripe cry "tyranny" because the federal government's doing this or that, with a few notable exceptions (Jim Crow, internment camps, etc.), those Americans don't know what the hell they're talking about. When it comes to people complaining about how tyrannical the federal government is, I'd dearly LOVE to send them to a real tyranny for a year or so, then when they come home, ask them if they still think America's a tyranny.
Click to expand...

what about the federal government murdering american Citizens which they did in the 1950's by giving them radiation pills.....
 
WCH said:
Name them
Click to expand...

SCOTUS cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional unless it is challenged. And those challenging any court decision must have standing. An Amendment can be added to the Constitution to change it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what about the federal government murdering american Citizens which they did in the 1950's by giving them radiation pills.....
Click to expand...

Documentation please. And it would have to be radioactive pills not radiation pills. You can't touch or eat radiation.
 
roguenuke said:
SCOTUS cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional unless it is challenged. And those challenging any court decision must have standing. An Amendment can be added to the Constitution to change it.
Click to expand...

Even then the SCOTUS has no duty to rule (hear a case with standing), effectively letting the lower court decision stand unchallenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom