Defund the police - 105 dead in july in Chicago

[danielpalos]

Cool, where does the Constitution define this difference and hierarchy between General and Common? Provide a direct quote.

Go ahead and post definitions from a dictionary. Did you know there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine?

 

[bomberfox]

No, but it does make for good political arguments with the right wing.

Thats sort of besides the point where we were talking about constitutional law. Always thought the pledge got less and less meaningful the several hundreds + times ive said it through my life. Became a chore.

 

[Questerr]

Good policing helps get the thugs off the streets.

Something you know little about.

Except it really doesn't if you look at the statistics.

 

[Questerr]

Go ahead and post definitions from a dictionary. Did you know there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine?

Are dictionaries part of the Constitution? No? Then in what way would that definition, whatever one I choose, have any actual proof?

 

[bomberfox]

Nope; it was an eminent domain issue. Our Civil War should have never happened. Our welfare clause is general and there is no common offense or general warfare clause.

What you though the south could claim eminent domain over a federal fort? No it wasnt an eminent domain issue, the thing that apparently needed to be clarified was the so called right to secede. The founders seemed to think it was an open license for general offense when they were waging war to conquer native lands.

 

[danielpalos]

Thats sort of besides the point where we were talking about constitutional law. Always thought the pledge got less and less meaningful the several hundreds + times ive said it through my life. Became a chore.

It has to do with right wing ideology. "they name street after the right wing, called One Way."

 

[danielpalos]

Are dictionaries part of the Constitution? No? Then in what way would that definition, whatever one I choose, have any actual proof?

Our Constitution is comprised of regular words.

 

[danielpalos]

What you though the south could claim eminent domain over a federal fort? No it wasnt an eminent domain issue, the thing that apparently needed to be clarified was the so called right to secede.

Don't be silly. The South did not fight over a simple fort.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Except it really doesn't if you look at the statistics.

Except it really does and it proves itself to be true over and over again.

Liberal mayors across the country are proving my point every day.

 

[Questerr]

Our Constitution is comprised of regular words.

No its not and no Constitutional scholar in the world will agree with you. It has many arcane clauses.

 

[Questerr]

Except it really does and it proves itself to be true over and over again.

Liberal mayors across the country are proving my point every day.

No it doesn't. "Good policing" does nothing to reduce crime statistics. It just increases prison statistics (which the Right loves, it provides slaves for their plantations). Reducing crime is a function of improving people's lives: better welfare programs, better education, better opportunities.

 

[danielpalos]

No its not and no Constitutional scholar in the world will agree with you. It has many arcane clauses.

Care to cite any examples? There are no "arcane clauses" only obsolete clauses. Are you sure you are on the left?

Here are the rules of construction:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty

 

[bomberfox]

Don't be silly. The South did not fight over a simple fort.

Not what i said. Im wondering what eminent domain right do you think the south had?

 

[Questerr]

Care to cite any examples? There are no "arcane clauses" only obsolete clauses. Are you sure you are on the left?

Here are the rules of construction:

The Emoluments Clause is a classic example of an arcane clause.

And yes. I'm an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, pro-social liberalism, highly progressive Leftist. Not everyone who disagrees with your idiotic soundbyte is on the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

The Emoluments Clause is a classic example of an arcane clause.

And yes. I'm an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, pro-social liberalism, highly progressive Leftist. Not everyone who disagrees with your idiotic soundbyte is on the Right.

It helps if you understand the term; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Maybe not, but most right wingers share your ideology and propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Questerr]

It helps if you understand the term; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Maybe not, but most right wingers share your ideology and propaganda and rhetoric.

Rightwingers oppose capitalism? Rightwingers believe we should massively downsize the military? Rightwingers believe in ending the War on Drugs and the decriminalization of drugs? Really? You're claiming that?

When George Washington signed bills into law that made his own whiskey production at his properties more profitable, was he in violation of the Emoluments Clause?

 

[bomberfox]

It helps if you understand the term; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Maybe not, but most right wingers share your ideology and propaganda and rhetoric.

What are you yammering about?

 

[danielpalos]

Rightwingers oppose capitalism? Rightwingers believe we should massively downsize the military? Rightwingers believe in ending the War on Drugs and the decriminalization of drugs? Really? You're claiming that?

When George Washington signed bills into law that made his own whiskey production at his properties more profitable, was he in violation of the Emoluments Clause?

lol. You are the one alleging the power to declare war is unrestricted and that our welfare clause is "too unrestricted to make sense".

 

[Questerr]

lol. You are the one alleging the power to declare war is unrestricted and that our welfare clause is "too unrestricted to make sense".

Please quote me where I said "the general welfare clause is too unrestricted to make sense". Provide a direct quote.

I very clearly said that the Framers of the Constitution failed massively by using vague undefined terms.

 

[bomberfox]

It helps if you understand the term; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

Maybe not, but most right wingers share your ideology and propaganda and rhetoric.

Its just facts of what the founding fathers did.

 

[Questerr]

lol. You are the one alleging the power to declare war is unrestricted and that our welfare clause is "too unrestricted to make sense".

Not letting you deflect: When George Washington signed bills into law that made his own whiskey production at his properties more profitable, was he in violation of the Emoluments Clause?

Also are you claiming Rightwingers oppose capitalism, support downsizing the military, and support ending the War on Drugs alongside drug decriminalization?

 

[danielpalos]

Please quote me where I said "the general welfare clause is too unrestricted to make sense". Provide a direct quote.

I very clearly said that the Framers of the Constitution failed massively by using vague undefined terms.

I used quotes to paraphrase.

The power to declare war is massively undefined. Are you special pleading for your power to declare war but not provide for the general welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

Its just facts of what the founding fathers did.

Good thing it was not that bad then, to get impeached for it.

 

[danielpalos]

Not letting you deflect: When George Washington signed bills into law that made his own whiskey production at his properties more profitable, was he in violation of the Emoluments Clause?

Also are you claiming Rightwingers oppose capitalism, support downsizing the military, and support ending the War on Drugs alongside drug decriminalization?

You are deflecting over your unequal view point regarding the unrestrictedness of one power over another.

 

[Questerr]

I used quotes to paraphrase.

The power to declare war is massively undefined. Are you special pleading for your power to declare war but not provide for the general welfare?

No I'm agreeing that the General Welfare clause can literally be defined at anything and no one on any side can definitively be called right as to what it means.

You don't believe the Right is correct them they claim Congress can declare war against Drugs. You believe you are right when you claim the General Welfare clause is unlimited. Cool. Neither of those positions can be backed up with the Constitution.

There are better arguments out there. If you want to argue against the Drug War, argue that its an utter failure.