• 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!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%

  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
What unadulterated BS. Any discussion of taxation that does not include all of taxation is inherently intellectual fraud. The radical right wing is so obsessed with one tax that it loses perspective on this issue.

Their gross intellectual dishonesty is rather pathetic.

radical right wing :roll:
 
And it is not only an illogical form of government, but impractical. The entire point is that people cannot agree on what is best for a country, with or without government. Taking the government out would allow a select few to gain a lot of power over the people because the Constitution does not protect us from other people, only the government.

I can easily see a corporation such as the one on seaQuest, where their employees are basically owned by the corporation, given the rules and things they have to live by. Many of the things libertarians want to remove government from are the very things that help to protect us from such a thing happening. It certainly is a balancing act ensuring that the government doesn't take more power and do the same thing, but it is stupid to go back the other way and allow some other small group of people to have that power.

taking a government out?

government is to be limited, and its primary duty is to secure the rights of the people, that is why government is instituted.

libertarians do not want to remove government ,they want government in its proper place, the federal government has its powers, and the states have there's, .......with the states having vast powers, while the federal government powers are few and defined.

it is the states who make up the compact, not the federal government.
 
Last edited:
taking a government out?

government is to be limited, and its primary duty is to secure the rights of the people, that is why government is instituted.

libertarians do not want to remove government ,they want government in its proper place, the federal government has its powers, and the states have there's, .......with the states having vast powers, while the federal government powers are few and defined.

it is the states who make up the compact, not the federal government.

The US cannot operate as it did when it first started, with the states having massive powers. It simply won't work. We have too many people in the US who move around. This isn't the 18th Century, it is the 21st. And here, in the 21st Century it is simply not practical to not ensure that all states operate pretty close to each other.
 
The US cannot operate as it did when it first started, with the states having massive powers. It simply won't work. We have too many people in the US who move around. This isn't the 18th Century, it is the 21st. And here, in the 21st Century it is simply not practical to not ensure that all states operate pretty close to each other.


so your opinion is.....cast the constitution aside.....we shall make our own rules.

federalist 39--Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
 
so your opinion is.....cast the constitution aside.....we shall make our own rules.

My opinion is that there is no need to cast aside the Constitution. It is not the Articles of Confederation. It is already set up just fine to deal with our current century without major changes. Many of the changes needed for it to adapt have already been made in the forms of Amendments put in place over the last century or more, basically since the original Bill of Rights.
 
My opinion is that there is no need to cast aside the Constitution. It is not the Articles of Confederation. It is already set up just fine to deal with our current century without major changes. Many of the changes needed for it to adapt have already been made in the forms of Amendments put in place over the last century or more, basically since the original Bill of Rights.

show me in our Constitution, where housing is, education, transportation, welfare..most of the things government is going is by federal law, why is not in the 18 delegated powers of congress to do.

no amendment in the constitution places a limit on citizens or business, can you tell me then how the federal government then has that power?


and to add this from the constitution---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"
.
 
show me in our Constitution, where housing is, education, transportation, welfare..most of the things government is going is by federal law, why is not in the 18 delegated powers of congress to do.

no amendment in the constitution places a limit on citizens or business, can you tell me then how the federal government then has that power?


and to add this from the constitution---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"
.

Everything doesn't need to be mentioned in our Constitution for us to be able to allow the federal government to have a say in it.

Education is a big one, especially to someone like me. My family is military. We move around, as do many of my neighbors. My son just started Kindergarten last month. Since then, at least one boy has moved and another student has moved in. Me and the two other moms I have become friends with in this last month all know that we will be moving somewhere else before the end of the school year. This means that wherever our children go to school, it would be great if they could not be behind just because their fathers' service obligations take them all over the country. This means that schools need to have a plan to stay with each other, ensuring students entering the schools are not at a disadvantage just because they come to a new school.

This is the United States. It is a single country, which means the most important things should be at least the same throughout the country, because otherwise people get screwed. We simply are not the same country we started as.
 
Everything doesn't need to be mentioned in our Constitution for us to be able to allow the federal government to have a say in it.

Education is a big one, especially to someone like me. My family is military. We move around, as do many of my neighbors. My son just started Kindergarten last month. Since then, at least one boy has moved and another student has moved in. Me and the two other moms I have become friends with in this last month all know that we will be moving somewhere else before the end of the school year. This means that wherever our children go to school, it would be great if they could not be behind just because their fathers' service obligations take them all over the country. This means that schools need to have a plan to stay with each other, ensuring students entering the schools are not at a disadvantage just because they come to a new school.

This is the United States. It is a single country, which means the most important things should be at least the same throughout the country, because otherwise people get screwed. We simply are not the same country we started as.



first i am speaking of the federal government only......

sorry but you are incorrect, only powers delegated to congress can they engage in, our government was meant to be limited.

the u.s, is a union of states ,it does not have a national government ...its federal, it practices federalism......we are not like France.


“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 in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“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.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
first i am speaking of the federal government only......

sorry but you are incorrect, only powers delegated to congress can they engage in, our government was meant to be limited.

the u.s, is a union of states ,it does not have a national government ...its federal, it practices federalism......we are not like France.


“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 in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“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.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

Whether you agree or not, "promote the general welfare", a power granted to the federal government, easily covers much of what the government does. It is an extremely general statement and easily used to justify pretty much anything the federal government wants to do. Perhaps it was a mistake on the writers' part or maybe it was a way that those who wanted more federal power were able to ensure that eventually, when the world changed to what it is now, and if we hadn't already broken apart, we would have a much more unified nation.

The federalists papers nor any other documents mean anything when it comes to the laws of the US. Legally, the Constitution is what matters when it comes to the powers of the federal government or the states. And the states have been limited in their powers. The majority of people feel that they are protected much better by the federal government from the states than they are by the states from the federal government. And let's face it, history proves this to be pretty true. Most laws that limited individual rights were state laws, not federal (although there are certainly some exceptions to this).
 
Whether you agree or not, "promote the general welfare", a power granted to the federal government, easily covers much of what the government does. It is an extremely general statement and easily used to justify pretty much anything the federal government wants to do. Perhaps it was a mistake on the writers' part or maybe it was a way that those who wanted more federal power were able to ensure that eventually, when the world changed to what it is now, and if we hadn't already broken apart, we would have a much more unified nation.

The federalists papers nor any other documents mean anything when it comes to the laws of the US. Legally, the Constitution is what matters when it comes to the powers of the federal government or the states. And the states have been limited in their powers. The majority of people feel that they are protected much better by the federal government from the states than they are by the states from the federal government. And let's face it, history proves this to be pretty true. Most laws that limited individual rights were state laws, not federal (although there are certainly some exceptions to this).


that is incorrect, if the federal government could do that when they would be unlimited.

“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.” – James Madison, 1792

Hamilton in federalist 84 state the constitution itself of 1788 is a bill of rights within itself, becuase the federal government is strictly limited, and its not possible for it to violate the rights of the people.

10th--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.

the states have most of the powers.
 
that is incorrect, if the federal government could do that when they would be unlimited.

“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.” – James Madison, 1792

Hamilton in federalist 84 state the constitution itself of 1788 is a bill of rights within itself, becuase the federal government is strictly limited, and its not possible for it to violate the rights of the people.

10th--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.

the states have most of the powers.

SO then what are you complaining about?

I like how we are. The states shouldn't have the most powers because we don't live in the 18th Century. It doesn't take us weeks or even months to move from one state to another. We can easily communicate with someone in any other US state instantaneously instead of having to wait for correspondence to reach them and then for their response to reach us, a process taking weeks, if not months or more, depending on who and where you are communicating with.

Times have changed. And they aren't going back. If it became necessary, I could easily see us adding Amendments that removed powers from the states and granted them to the federal government, given our current needs.
 
SO then what are you complaining about?

I like how we are. The states shouldn't have the most powers because we don't live in the 18th Century. It doesn't take us weeks or even months to move from one state to another. We can easily communicate with someone in any other US state instantaneously instead of having to wait for correspondence to reach them and then for their response to reach us, a process taking weeks, if not months or more, depending on who and where you are communicating with.

Times have changed. And they aren't going back. If it became necessary, I could easily see us adding Amendments that removed powers from the states and granted them to the federal government, given our current needs.

so again your not for the federal government following the constitution, however you would tell the states they must.

the only way the states can have their powers taken from them is if they consent to it by ratifying amendments to do that...and thats not going to happen.

the founders have proven you wrong in your words, ...you just want the government to act in a fashion which you approve of, and that is not constitutional.

the founders are clear... government is supposed to be limited, becuase unlimited government becomes tyrannical.
 
so again your not for the federal government following the constitution, however you would tell the states they must.

the only way the states can have their powers taken from them is if they consent to it by ratifying amendments to do that...and thats not going to happen.

the founders have proven you wrong in your words, ...you just want the government to act in a fashion which you approve of, and that is not constitutional.

the founders are clear... government is supposed to be limited, becuase unlimited government becomes tyrannical.

They are following the Constitution. They are ensuring the general welfare for all US citizens, despite the state they live in. You can complain if you like, but it is the case. And it has held up just fine for quite a number of decades now as a just reason. I would much rather my rights be protected rather than the states' rights be protected.
 
They are following the Constitution. They are ensuring the general welfare for all US citizens, despite the state they live in. You can complain if you like, but it is the case. And it has held up just fine for quite a number of decades now as a just reason. I would much rather my rights be protected rather than the states' rights be protected.


sorry thats incorrect.... the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress, it is not a free license to do as they feel like.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

for you to say the federal governments powers are unlimited is false, ........becuase the founders say ......it is limited.

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."--James Madison

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”--james madison
 
sorry thats incorrect.... the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress, it is not a free license to do as they feel like.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

for you to say the federal governments powers are unlimited is false, ........becuase the founders say ......it is limited.

And obviously it hasn't been used as such. It has been used to expand their powers though, whether you agree or not, and that has been approved as acceptable by the SCOTUS and people simply don't care enough to stop them. I am one of those people.

As I've said, I am much more concerned about protected my own and others' rights from the states than from the federal government. History shows us that states are much more likely to try to infringe upon individual rights than the federal government.
 
And obviously it hasn't been used as such. It has been used to expand their powers though, whether you agree or not, and that has been approved as acceptable by the SCOTUS and people simply don't care enough to stop them. I am one of those people.

As I've said, I am much more concerned about protected my own and others' rights from the states than from the federal government. History shows us that states are much more likely to try to infringe upon individual rights than the federal government.

so what you telling me is you willing to go with the flow of unconstitutional government, becuase you like it, and the federal government needs total power to keep states in check, even though its the states, that created the constitution, and that constitution created the federal government.
 
so what you telling me is you willing to go with the flow of unconstitutional government, becuase you like it, and the federal government needs total power to keep states in check, even though its the states, that created the constitution, and that constitution created the federal government.

I'm willing to go with what I see as a completely constitutional use of federal power. Just because you don't agree with the assessment, doesn't make you right.
 
I'm willing to go with what I see as a completely constitutional use of federal power. Just because you don't agree with the assessment, doesn't make you right.


oh, its clear the congress only has power delegated to them in article 1 section 8.

is there any listing of education housing epa, transportation...no

i also posted a a clause of that section that clearly states congress only has legislative authority inside of d.c. only and federal buildings where the states agree, the federal government has no legislative authority on state or private land.

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
 
oh, its clear the congress only has power delegated to them in article 1 section 8.

is there any listing of education housing epa, transportation...no

i also posted a a clause of that section that clearly states congress only has legislative authority inside of d.c. only and federal buildings where the states agree, the federal government has no legislative authority on state or private land.

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

The states have agreed to allow the federal government to have that power, that authority. Your arguments fail. And it is simply not going to work to allow any state of the US to secede from the US. It would cause major problems if one of those within the middle of the country were allowed to do so, and not fair if those on the coast did so. It simply wouldn't work.
 
oh, its clear the congress only has power delegated to them in article 1 section 8.

is there any listing of education housing epa, transportation...no

i also posted a a clause of that section that clearly states congress only has legislative authority inside of d.c. only and federal buildings where the states agree, the federal government has no legislative authority on state or private land.

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

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;

You are still confusing exclusive← Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District →(D.C.)← with the limited powers of the Federal Government. Its double talk designed to fool the ignorant.
 
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;

You are still confusing exclusive← Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District →(D.C.)← with the limited powers of the Federal Government. Its double talk designed to fool the ignorant.

how?..... its very clear, the congress has total legislative authority in d.c. or where the federal government and the states agree for needful buildings.

it does not give congress legislative authority over areas that the states do not agree.

this is what limited government means......
 
The states have agreed to allow the federal government to have that power, that authority. Your arguments fail. And it is simply not going to work to allow any state of the US to secede from the US. It would cause major problems if one of those within the middle of the country were allowed to do so, and not fair if those on the coast did so. It simply wouldn't work.

really ,you who say the government can do at will what they want, that its unlimited, that is directly contrary to what the founders say.

it states that the legislative branch of government , it does not say judicial or executive.
 
how?..... its very clear, the congress has total legislative authority in d.c. or where the federal government and the states agree for needful buildings.

it does not give congress legislative authority over areas that the states do not agree.

this is what limited government means......

Considering that what you quoted only dealt with D.C. and other federal holdings, then of course the federal government only has exclusive legislation in those jurisdictions. But to try and use that section as the final word on a unrelated topic is dishonest. The separation of powers in the United States is explained elsewhere in the Constitution.

In the same article that you are trying to dishonestly represent (article 1) there is for example section 10 which specifically forbids the States from engaging in certain behavior. Which clearly shows that the Constitution has the power to tell the states what they can and cannot do. The Constitution uses definite wording "No state shall" meaning that if a State goes against the Constitution then they will be in trouble to say the least. Article 1 Section 10 isnt the only place in the Constitution that makes such assertions but clearly the States cannot just do whatever they want.

BTW me stating these facts doesnt somehow marry me to whatever it is that you think that you arguing against. My only point was to correct a misrepresentation of the Constitution that your were making. And even though I am a property owner I would never support such a qualification to vote. There is no need for us to regress in such a extreme manner back to the days when women could not vote and people were kept as slaves.
 
Considering that what you quoted only dealt with D.C. and other federal holdings, then of course the federal government only has exclusive legislation in those jurisdictions. But to try and use that section as the final word on a unrelated topic is dishonest. The separation of powers in the United States is explained elsewhere in the Constitution.

In the same article that you are trying to dishonestly represent (article 1) there is for example section 10 which specifically forbids the States from engaging in certain behavior. Which clearly shows that the Constitution has the power to tell the states what they can and cannot do. The Constitution uses definite wording "No state shall" meaning that if a State goes against the Constitution then they will be in trouble to say the least. Article 1 Section 10 isnt the only place in the Constitution that makes such assertions but clearly the States cannot just do whatever they want.

BTW me stating these facts doesnt somehow marry me to whatever it is that you think that you arguing against. My only point was to correct a misrepresentation of the Constitution that your were making. And even though I am a property owner I would never support such a qualification to vote. There is no need for us to regress in such a extreme manner back to the days when women could not vote and people were kept as slaves.

let me see if i can make my point clearer.

under the constitution the U.S . CONGRESS has NO legislative authority, over the lives of the citizens of the states, property of the state or citizens, the liberty of citizens of a state, the day to day internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

again NO legislative authority ..........as stated by james madison
 
Last edited:
let me see if i can make my point clearer.

under the constitution the U.S . CONGRESS has NO legislative authority, over the lives of the citizens of the states, property of the state or citizens, the liberty of citizens of a state, the day to day internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

again NO legislative authority ..........as stated by james madison

And why are you making this point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom