• 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!

Justice Dept. Says Acorn Can Be Paid

obvious Child said:
Show me in the constitution where the government doesn't have the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

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.
Click to expand...

That didn't take long.
 
Zyphlin said:
That didn't take long.
Click to expand...

Preamble to The Constitution of the United States,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, "promote the general Welfare", and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Most people would be said to distort things to make them appear to support their positions.

Liberals on the other hand pervert things, nay everything.

It's amazing lately how many quote the high lighted section of the Preamble and claim it as their proof "Health Care" is covered in the Constitution. Apparently they were never taught that the items covered by Constitution begin night after, Article I, Section1.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Most people would be said to distort things to make them appear to support their positions.

Liberals on the other hand pervert things, nay everything.

It's amazing lately how many quote the high lighted section of the Preamble and claim it as their proof "Health Care" is covered in the Constitution. Apparently they were never taught that the items covered by Constitution begin night after, Article I, Section1.
Click to expand...
Its also amazing how many people talk about the 10th amendment without referring to existing case law. For instance in wickard v filburn it was decided that congress could regulate wheat production on a family farm that was intended for personal consumption on the farm. Garcia v san antonio metro transit authority stated that federal minimum wage guidelines trumped the guidelines of the state and the feds werent encroaching on state sovereignty. In south dakota v dole the feds were allowed to dictate the legal drinking age to the states. Several exceptions have been used over the years them being the commerce clause, tax and spending clause and the necessary and proper clause.
 
obvious Child said:
So you believe that everything explicitly not stated in the document is unconstitutional?

Show me in the constitution where the government doesn't have the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Keep the 10th amendment firmly in mind as you read

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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.
Click to expand...

Nope.... don't see a thing in the constitution that enumerates the power to own part of a private company, or to buy part or all of a private company, paid for out of our tax dollars.... if you do, please point it out.
By the way, you do realize that government pension funds are some of the largest equity holders in public firms and private equity?
Click to expand...

And you can't see the difference between a pension fund and owning part of a car company? :shock:
See the link I posted. Section 603 I believe.

They do call out Acorn in the bill. That is pretty much a textbook case of a bill of attainder.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

This just goes to show that congress is totally incompetent to write any legislation that is legal and consistent with the constitution......... surprises me not.
 
Councilman said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww

And here I thought only our opinions didn't matter to Obama. This guy is so arrogant that he and his disciples will ignore laws he's signed.

My question is did that Bill say future funding or just funding?

I pretty much expected something like this. Obama has to get his way and nothing wil get in his way.
Click to expand...
i don't understand the issue here. they provided services, they will be paid.
 
donc said:
Rainbow?:shock: got pictures?
Click to expand...

Looked just like these two, except the short one was two inches longer. ;)

SUNP0002.jpg
 
PogueMoran said:
Its also amazing how many people talk about the 10th amendment without referring to existing case law. For instance in wickard v filburn it was decided that congress could regulate wheat production on a family farm that was intended for personal consumption on the farm. Garcia v san antonio metro transit authority stated that federal minimum wage guidelines trumped the guidelines of the state and the feds werent encroaching on state sovereignty. In south dakota v dole the feds were allowed to dictate the legal drinking age to the states. Several exceptions have been used over the years them being the commerce clause, tax and spending clause and the necessary and proper clause.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that the courts get away with re-writing the constitution from the bench. I think the day of life time appointments to the SC need to go the way of the Dodo, it's obvious these clowns forget who they are.
 
PogueMoran said:
Its also amazing how many people talk about the 10th amendment without referring to existing case law. For instance in wickard v filburn it was decided that congress could regulate wheat production on a family farm that was intended for personal consumption on the farm. Garcia v san antonio metro transit authority stated that federal minimum wage guidelines trumped the guidelines of the state and the feds werent encroaching on state sovereignty.
Click to expand...
These sorts of commerce clause interpretations are one of the main reasons we need to restore sanity on the Supreme Court. Don't you think it absurd to use an "interstate commerce" regulative authority to force a farmer to throw out crops he wants to grow for himself? Such a wide interpretation gives the feds the power to do just about anything they want, and that certainly wasn't the original intent.

PogueMoran said:
In south dakota v dole the feds were allowed to dictate the legal drinking age to the states.
Click to expand...
The feds didn't set the drinking age, they coerced the states into compliance by threatening economic sanctions.
 
obvious Child said:
Show me in the constitution where the government doesn't have the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Amendment 10:
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.
 
donc said:
What say prof, should the contract be broken? Should the government be like the infamous REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA? Where they said that Congress should abide to all the laws that the rest of the country has to abide to?
Click to expand...

The Contract With America was the Republicans pledge "to bring to the floor [of the House] the ten bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection".

The ten items were brought to a vote. Most of them passed the House.

What's your problem, just basic ignorance and a heartfelt desire to repeat Democrat talking points because regurgitation is easier than thinking for yourself?
 
formerroadie said:
Good. I hope they revoke the ACORN funding law or apply it to all contracts. It's obvious people were duped into believing something was wrong due to the actions of 3 or so people. The right wing fears the poor. If they are educated on their rights and given a chance to speak, they right wing knows they haven't a chance. I, for one, will be helping ACORN and supporting them financially for many years to come.
Click to expand...

"Duped"?

You have no qualms about an organization with a corporate policy of encouraging child prostitution?

You must be a Democrat.
 
PogueMoran said:
Its also amazing how many people talk about the 10th amendment without referring to existing case law.
Click to expand...

That's because case law is bull****.

Existing case law says that negroes are property and cannot be removed from their owners merely because said negro is taken to an non-slave state.

A civil war changed that, not legal beagles.

The Tenth Amendment says the federal government doesn't have the authority to assume powers not specifically granted it.

Any case law that says otherwise is flat wrong.
 
Crunch said:
It amazes me that the courts get away with re-writing the constitution from the bench. I think the day of life time appointments to the SC need to go the way of the Dodo, it's obvious these clowns forget who they are.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

I favor either 9 year or 18 year terms for Supreme Court justices.

To remove the potential for more political games, I recommend that these justices not be eligible for re-nomination to any other federal judicial position.

That would pretty much end the practice of socialist activist judges refusing to retire until their favorite liberal socialist scum-bucket America-hating president takes office, and allow the courts to get back to the job of intrepreting the law without politics.

Life-time judgeships is one of the biggest mistakes the Founders made.
 
Taylor said:
These sorts of commerce clause interpretations are one of the main reasons we need to restore sanity on the Supreme Court. Don't you think it absurd to use an "interstate commerce" regulative authority to force a farmer to throw out crops he wants to grow for himself? Such a wide interpretation gives the feds the power to do just about anything they want, and that certainly wasn't the original intent.


The feds didn't set the drinking age, they coerced the states into compliance by threatening economic sanctions.
Click to expand...

The Left, being ignorant of history, while chanting about "case law", sees no danger in allowing the federal government the power to bully the states.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Left, being ignorant of history, while chanting about "case law", sees no danger in allowing the federal government the power to bully the states.
Click to expand...

Or usurp any power by claiming it falls under some silly catch all clause.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

James Madison's view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8. This response is from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;

“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."
Click to expand...

James Madison said that 'general welfare' not prescription for unlimited government
 
Crunch said:
James Madison said that 'general welfare' not prescription for unlimited government
Click to expand...

So did Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 83.

which pretty much nails the lid down on the coffin of the "General Welfare Clause = Unlimited Government" argument. None of the principals that forged the Constitution viewed it as anything more than explanatory phrase serving only as the justification for the enumerated powers assigned the federal government. That phrase was simply not a blank check, period.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So did Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 83.

which pretty much nails the lid down on the coffin of the "General Welfare Clause = Unlimited Government" argument. None of the principals that forged the Constitution viewed it as anything more than explanatory phrase serving only as the justification for the enumerated powers assigned the federal government. That phrase was simply not a blank check, period.
Click to expand...

and yet neither of them convinced the cohort of the Constitutional Convention to revise it to express the specificity they later attributed to that provision

failmic-1.jpg
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Contract With America was the Republicans pledge "to bring to the floor [of the House] the ten bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection".

The ten items were brought to a vote. Most of them passed the House.

What's your problem, just basic ignorance and a heartfelt desire to repeat Democrat talking points because regurgitation is easier than thinking for yourself?
Click to expand...


I don’t have a problem with talking points, maybe you were looking in a mirror when you said that and like magic it just popped up on your screen.

My gig is pointing out facts, so I will just point at the fact that I posted for the prof, again, for your enjoyment but with more detail. Like this fact that evidently you call a talking point.

The Citizen Legislature Act, which calls for “term limits to replace career politicians,”.


In the House of Representatives, 23 candidates are running for re-election in 2006, Gasp, violating their term-limits pledge. :roll:

Here’s the list of them. J.D. Hayworth, Steve Chabot
George Radanovich, Dave Weldon, Charlie Norwood, Jerry Weller, Mark Souder, John Hostettler, Todd Tiahrt, Ed Whitfield, Gil Gutknecht, Roger Wicker, Charles Bass, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Sue Kelly, Mac Thornberry, Phil English, Steve LaTourette
Bob Ney Walter Jones, Sue Myrick, Tom Davis, Zach Wamp
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Contract With America was the Republicans pledge "to bring to the floor [of the House] the ten bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection".

The ten items were brought to a vote. Most of them passed the House.

What's your problem, just basic ignorance and a heartfelt desire to repeat Democrat talking points because regurgitation is easier than thinking for yourself?
Click to expand...

Wow, they didn't filibuster themselves? Seems that's all they know how to do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom