Commerce Clause discussion

danielpalos · Feb 26, 2020

Samwise said:
No prohibition cited. Sorry. Now you’re just blowing smoke.

Sorry; it is your appeal to ignorance of plain reason and legal axioms that "makes you say that".

This is the express language that denies and disparages some forms of secession:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

This is how it must be done:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

In Order, not in Chaos. Our supreme law of the land is supreme, in every Conflict of Laws.

Rich2018 · Feb 26, 2020

danielpalos said:
Sorry; it is your appeal to ignorance...

So you're trying that phrase with someone else now. It's an "appeal from ignorance" Btw
I might help if you got the phrase right

Though when you tried it with me, you were unable to define what an "appeal from ignorance" is, so I don't expect you to know now.

They're just a meaningless jumble of words to you.

danielpalos · Feb 26, 2020

Rich2018 said:
So you're trying that phrase with someone else now. It's an "appeal from ignorance" Btw
I might help if you got the phrase right

Though when you tried it with me, you were unable to define what an "appeal from ignorance" is, so I don't expect you to know now.

They're just a meaningless jumble of words to you.

He could be appealing from ignorance; but You, appeal to ignorance.

Rich2018 · Feb 26, 2020

danielpalos said:
He could be appealing from ignorance; but You, appeal to ignorance.

Appealing to your ignorance ?

What is the definition for "appealing to ignorance" and also the definition of "appealing from ignorance".

I would give any odds that you don't give any definitions with links.

danielpalos · Feb 26, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Appealing to your ignorance ?

What is the definition for "appealing to ignorance" and also the definition of "appealing from ignorance".

I would give any odds that you don't give any definitions with links.

I am using Standard definition. I merely resort to plain reason and legal axioms.

Rich2018 · Feb 27, 2020

danielpalos said:
I am using Standard definition...

Which is ?

And do you have a link to it by any remote chance ?

I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

danielpalos · Feb 27, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Which is ?

And do you have a link to it by any remote chance ?

I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

lol. I don't make Excuses like You. Post any Standard definition you want and show me where I am wrong.

Rich2018 · Feb 27, 2020

danielpalos said:
lol. I don't make Excuses like You. Post any Standard definition you want and show me where I am wrong.

You are dodging

What definition are you using for an "appeal from ignorance" ?

Or if you prefer "an appeal to ignorance" (which doesn't exist.

And as stated, I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

danielpalos · Feb 27, 2020

Rich2018 said:
You are dodging

What definition are you using for an "appeal from ignorance" ?

Or if you prefer "an appeal to ignorance" (which doesn't exist.

And as stated, I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

You really are appealing to ignorance of plain reason and legal axioms.

Idontbelonghere · Feb 27, 2020

Rich2018 said:
A foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

Now who does that NOT include ?

The individual.

Rich2018 · Feb 27, 2020

danielpalos said:
You really are appealing to ignorance of plain reason and legal axioms.

More dodging

What definition are you using for an "appeal from/to ignorance" ?

And as stated, I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

Rich2018 · Feb 27, 2020

Idontbelonghere said:
The individual.

...so long as they don'r reside in a state or are a member of a foreign nation or Indian tribe.

danielpalos · Feb 27, 2020

Rich2018 said:
More dodging

What definition are you using for an "appeal from/to ignorance" ?

And as stated, I realize that getting you to give a definition is like getting blood from a stone.

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause in particular that implies the market friendliness of Capitalism. We can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner, only the right wing complains that the "social Horror" of the Poor benefiting under Capitalism, may be too much to bear.

Rich2018 · Feb 27, 2020

danielpalos said:
Our welfare clause is General yada yada yada...

Like conversing with a talking doll.

danielpalos · Feb 27, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Like conversing with a talking doll.

You appeal to ignorance instead of plain reason and legal axioms. Even Alice 2.0 has better arguments than you.

Rich2018 · Feb 28, 2020

danielpalos said:
You appeal to ignorance instead of plain reason and legal axioms. Even Alice 2.0 has better arguments than you.

Our welfare clause is common, and our general clause is warfare.

Samwise · Feb 29, 2020

Rich2018 said:
...so long as they don'r reside in a state or are a member of a foreign nation or Indian tribe.

It says "individuals residing in a state"? Where does it say that?

Samwise · Feb 29, 2020

Rich2018 said:
A foreign nation, a state, or an Indian tribe.

Now who does that NOT include ?

Whom does it not include? Anything that is not a foreign nation, a state , or an Indian tribe. That's who it doesn't include.

danielpalos · Feb 29, 2020

Samwise said:
It says "individuals residing in a state"? Where does it say that?

He doesn't care. Only illegals don't care about express laws.

Rich2018 · Feb 29, 2020

Samwise said:
Whom does it not include? Anything that is not a foreign nation, a state , or an Indian tribe. That's who it doesn't include.

But our welfare clause is general.

Samwise · Feb 29, 2020

Rich2018 said:
But our welfare clause is general.

Wow, now you sound like DanielPaolos.

So we know that the several sovereign states delegated to congress the power to regulate commerce among foreign nations, the several states, and the indian tribes.

So the question is: Which are you? A foreign nation? A state? Or an Indian tribe?

Rich2018 · Mar 1, 2020

Samwise said:
Wow, now you sound like DanielPaolos.

So we know that the several sovereign states delegated to congress the power to regulate commerce among foreign nations, the several states, and the indian tribes.

So the question is: Which are you? A foreign nation? A state? Or an Indian tribe?

Congress is restricted by the Constitution to it's enumerated powers.

danielpalos · Mar 1, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Congress is restricted by the Constitution to it's enumerated powers.

Here are the relevant powers:

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;

Rich2018 · Mar 1, 2020

danielpalos said:
Here are the relevant powers:

But our welfare clause is GENERAL, out defense clause is COMMON.

Samwise · Mar 1, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Congress is restricted by the Constitution to it's enumerated powers.

Which do not include the regulation of individual purchases.

Commerce Clause discussion

Active member