• 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

But yet Congress after Congress and President after President and Supreme Court after Supreme Court advocates or gives their blessing for taxation and the spending of that money that does many things that the right - at least the modern right - objects so vociferously to.

That is indeed true. We also have a cabinet level federal department of education, but absolutely no federal power of education exists in the constitution. Simply because something is deemed good or important does not mean that is is then a new federal power.

It seems as though you feel anything that passes congress and is signed into law by the POTUS is thus constitutional. Our nine robed federal umpires are not allowed to throw penalty flags, they must wait until someone deemed to have "standing" gets an issue through the court system; even then they may simply decline to rule on that issue at all. Separate but equal is totally illegal when based on race (unless it is called affirmative action or used as a remedy for past discrimination) but mandated for college sports based on gender.
 
This weekend will be full of nothing but bitch and spin..
Maybe we can hear more from the five-time draft-dodger Cheney
trying to elect his daughter over a decent GOP Senator by lying about the President being a liar..
And you guys from the past wonder why I'm not going to calm down with GOP lying/treason .

Calm down? In a way it is hard for me to understand, but then again I am not a die hard anything. I think first and foremost I am a numbers guy trying to figure out how all this stuff will effect the upcoming elections with everything else at least in second place. As to the ACA, I am peeved at how senators and representatives can totally ignore the wishes of the people of their state and district and vote the party line. Now I am not talking a minor issue here, it was a very major one. I am not talking a 52-48 split or even 55-45. I am talking about places where 60% or more of the people were against the law. Those folks IMO has to go. They only put party politics and agenda above the people. Not good. They were sent to Washington to represent the people of their district, state etc. not their party. The bare bones of the ACA, I don't know much about it and really don't care.

I like the president and the first lady, but I do have policy differences with him. I also agree with him on many of his policies, especially foreign policy with two exception that stands out. Not going to congress for Libya and the bombing of Syria, the rest I am perfectly happy with. On the domestic scene, it is the rising debt he seems to ignore and of course this ACA thing. I don't particular like how he governs by executive order most of the time, but to a lesser extent other presidents have done this by trying to end run congress. But all and all, no real big grips. I do think he has set some very bad precedents that you and your fellow Democrats are taking glee in now, but will be howling at the top of your lungs when a Republican president uses those same precedents. So there you have it.
 
I agree that for the vast majority of people we certainly DO NOT want to create life long dependence. For some who are physically or mentally incapable - there may be no alternative. For most, temporary help is a sad necessity for a society like ours.

I've got no problem with that sort of approach, but that's not what we have right now. And the Left doesn't want to change anything, that's my main gripe.
 
Except that is NOT the point of issue. The actual point is your own particular far right extremist interpretation of the powers of Congress.

that is exactly the point, you believe the USSC can interpret the constitution and Madison....... cannot .

even thought Madison, was involved in about every stage of the construction of the constitution , .......and since a person as Madison was involve so heavily in its construction, its not opinion........ it is fact.

so i am not putting my view across ......i am using Madison's view, ...as i have provided many times, so you referring to ---------->James Madison position on the constitution as ........... far right extremist interpretation.

your the one, who said James Madison has his head up his backside!.......

are you going to say that people knew "gone with the wind" better than Margret Mitchell? since it was her creation.

no one knows ones creation ...better than its creator.
 
Last edited:
Sorry EB. Congress after Congress after Congress does not agree with you.

Sorry EB. President after President after President does not agree with you.

Sorry EB but Supreme Court after Supreme Court after Supreme Court does not agree with you.

Your position seems to have you pretty much isolated way out there on the edge of a very long branch.

the federal government, stepped outside of the constitution long before you and i were never born, and committed unconstitutional acts.

no where does the federal government have authority in our life's, liberty or property.


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 government] 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.
 
Last edited:
Of course you feel that way because using the Constitution simply drives yet another nail in the coffin for your far right extremist arguments.

no..i just think you a VERY dishonest poster.

YOU stated i needed to read the constitution, ................so your focus was on the document itself..

when i told i had read it, you wanted to know what i had learned from it, which i believe supported my position.

i stated to you what that was, ....and Thomas Jefferson backed up what i had to say.......THEN you abandoned the constitution which you initially focused on and ran to the USSC .

your continued sleight of hand tricks are tiresome, and prove, the points made about you in the basement.
 
Taxation does not mean that no constitutional federal power is then required to spend that money.

I don't see your point. Are you claiming that the federal government is spending money without authority to Constitutionally do so?
 
I don't see your point. Are you claiming that the federal government is spending money without authority to Constitutionally do so?

Yes. The federal department of education is a prime example - there is no mention of education as a constitutional federal power.
 
Yes. The federal department of education is a prime example - there is no mention of education as a constitutional federal power.

Typical libertarian drivel: "The government has no right to provide citizens with an education."

I bet you feel the same way about roads, bridges, rails, airports, and providing food for the poor. You probably also think an energy policy, environmental regulations and the monetary system are the result of a socialist conspiracy.
 
Yes. The federal department of education is a prime example - there is no mention of education as a constitutional federal power.

Of course the Department of education has been operating for 34 years now and one would think that is more than ample time for someone to make a legal challenge and get it before the Court. I also note that during the span we have had Presidents Reagan, and two Presidents Bush - all of whom opposed it but did nothing about it.
 
Typical libertarian drivel: "The government has no right to provide citizens with an education."

I bet you feel the same way about roads, bridges, rails, airports, and providing food for the poor. You probably also think an energy policy, environmental regulations and the monetary system are the result of a socialist conspiracy.

he did not say that, you need to read more careful.....he is what he said "The federal department of education is a prime example - there is no mention of education as a constitutional federal power.

education is a state power, not a federal power.

most of the other things you espouse are also not constitutional powers either.
 
Typical libertarian drivel: "The government has no right to provide citizens with an education."

I bet you feel the same way about roads, bridges, rails, airports, and providing food for the poor. You probably also think an energy policy, environmental regulations and the monetary system are the result of a socialist conspiracy.

You continue to show how lacking our education system is today as you ignore the role of the state and local government as well as the purpose of the various taxes we pay. What exactly are you doing to do your share in taking care of the poor, giving your money to a bureaucrat to do it for you?

Roads, bridges, rails, airports, and providing food for the poor is mostly funded by state and local taxes except for the interstate highway system which is funded by Federal excise taxes on petroleum products purchased by the users of those infrastructure items. When will you ever learn the role of the govt. as well as what your taxes fund?
 
I've got no problem with that sort of approach, but that's not what we have right now. And the Left doesn't want to change anything, that's my main gripe.

Some folks here accuse me of being on the left. So your claim is not altogether true.
 
that is exactly the point, you believe the USSC can interpret the constitution and Madison....... cannot .

It has a great deal to do with the fact that he is dead and has been so for a very very very long time now.

are you going to say that people knew "gone with the wind" better than Margret Mitchell? since it was her creation.

no one knows ones creation ...better than its creator.

You are guilty of committing the fallacy of False Equivalency. GWTW had one author. The Constitution had 55. Madison was not the author of it as Mitchell was with GWTW.
 
You continue to show how lacking our education system is today as you ignore the role of the state and local government as well as the purpose of the various taxes we pay. What exactly are you doing to do your share in taking care of the poor, giving your money to a bureaucrat to do it for you?

Roads, bridges, rails, airports, and providing food for the poor is mostly funded by state and local taxes except for the interstate highway system which is funded by Federal excise taxes on petroleum products purchased by the users of those infrastructure items. When will you ever learn the role of the govt. as well as what your taxes fund?

Without the uniformity mandated by the Federal Government, the South would probably still have slaves and the Northeast would be colonizing Mars. If the federal government didn't ban slavery and force an end to Jim Crow, those states would never have let go of those institutions. And, if wealth wasn't sucked out of the educated Blue States to help support the backward Red ones, Blue Stters would be so flush with cash, Venus would probably be on our vacation guides.
 
the federal government, stepped outside of the constitution long before you and i were never born, and committed unconstitutional acts.

no where does the federal government have authority in our life's, liberty or property.


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 government] 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.

And were Madison GOD, that might be relevant. Since he was not, its just one mans opinion written before the new government ever really got rolling. So Madison is like a family member pontificating about the future of a infant.
 
Of course the Department of education has been operating for 34 years now and one would think that is more than ample time for someone to make a legal challenge and get it before the Court. I also note that during the span we have had Presidents Reagan, and two Presidents Bush - all of whom opposed it but did nothing about it.

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.
 
Without the uniformity mandated by the Federal Government, the South would probably still have slaves and the Northeast would be colonizing Mars. If the federal government didn't ban slavery and force an end to Jim Crow, those states would never have let go of those institutions. And, if wealth wasn't sucked out of the educated Blue States to help support the backward Red ones, Blue Stters would be so flush with cash, Venus would probably be on our vacation guides.

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
 
no..i just think you a VERY dishonest poster.

YOU stated i needed to read the constitution, ................so your focus was on the document itself..

when i told i had read it, you wanted to know what i had learned from it, which i believe supported my position.

i stated to you what that was, ....and Thomas Jefferson backed up what i had to say.......THEN you abandoned the constitution which you initially focused on and ran to the USSC .

your continued sleight of hand tricks are tiresome, and prove, the points made about you in the basement.

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.
 
Without the uniformity mandated by the Federal Government, the South would probably still have slaves and the Northeast would be colonizing Mars. If the federal government didn't ban slavery and force an end to Jim Crow, those states would never have let go of those institutions. And, if wealth wasn't sucked out of the educated Blue States to help support the backward Red ones, Blue Stters would be so flush with cash, Venus would probably be on our vacation guides.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say...you live in the North? Just a wild guess.

also, you do know that half the Presidents in the last 50 years have come from the (backward) South, so I guess they managed to build a school or two in the cotton fields to produce a few educated citizens, no?
 
And were Madison GOD, that might be relevant. Since he was not, its just one mans opinion written before the new government ever really got rolling. So Madison is like a family member pontificating about the future of a infant.

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.
 
he did not say that, you need to read more careful.....he is what he said "The federal department of education is a prime example - there is no mention of education as a constitutional federal power.

education is a state power, not a federal power.

most of the other things you espouse are also not constitutional powers either.
The Constitution defines Blacks as 3/5ths of a person too. What's your point?
 
Back
Top Bottom