Leftist & RINOs vs The Tea Party
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
philly rabbit
Verified User
Well which one is it Jersey?
Make up your mind. I can't drop dead and go fishing at the same time.
Nope. A government whether Federal, State or municipal that is unchecked by limits on the violation of minority rights or individual rights is unlimited. The states don't have a right to infringe upon the rights of individuals via social issues. The Federal courts have limited the States ability to do so in order to preserve our liberty. Those who revile the court for such rulings are supporting unlimited government. They want mob rule or unlimited government at the state level because they have lost at the Federal level.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. - TJ
http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/03a.asp
In republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
....
The only effectual safeguard to the rights of the minority, must be laid in such a basis and structure of the Government itself, as may afford, in a certain degree, directly or indirectly, a defensive authority in behalf of a minority having right on its side.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fo...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/
Last edited:
Robo
Verified User
Where the fuck Goober did you gather up the idea that somebody here was advocating for State’s Rights of Power unchecked by the federal courts? Can’t you distinguish your fucking wet dreams from the written communications heretofore?
So tell us in your imagination who the hell checks FEDERAL law without bias and partisan loyalty? The fucking Supreme Court is just another fucking fox guarding the chicken coop, don’t you agree? Explain for us how the Supreme Court determined that Obama-Care was constitutional. Point out the constitutional authority, i. e. Article or Amendment that gives the power to the federal government to construct and govern over a national healthcare system.
philly rabbit
Verified User
Oh here we go again, social justice human rights! - the familiar cry of Marx and Engels. Centralized authority controlling every aspect of the individual in the name of social justice!
This crapola is so old from the left it's sickening.
I already pointed this out to you, moron.
Your effusive agreement.
This was the course of the conversation. Your delusions don't change that.
And, you still continue to try to sneak in the word "rights" in reference to the States when the tenth made it clear that the POWERS granted to the states were not morally grounded. They were simply distributed to provide the most effective checks and balances on the power of government.
I already, answered your question, moron. If the ruling of a court is found objectionable it might be possible to change it with a law/amendment or change can be affected through the nomination and confirmation of justices.
How is Obamacare relevant? The far right wing becomes enraged when laws are struck down by the Federal courts. How then would they argue against laws being upheld? Their contempt is for judicial review which would imply that Congress and state legislators should be unchecked.
Obamacare's relevance is that it is something for you to complain about. You are nothing more than an ignorant crank. You complain to complain and don't actually offer any alternatives.
But to answer your question, Roberts (Bush appointed) ruling came down to the interstate commerce clause and the power to tax granted by the 16th. Frankly, I think it was aided by Justice the Hutt's (Reagan appointed) ruling in Raich. The ACA ruling was a massive stretch but once you have set up the precedent that the interstate commerce clause can cover what plants you grow for your own use, then it's a bit easier.
But my position on that is consistent as I think the courts should be very active in striking down bad laws. I am all for judicial review. In fact, I think it is the only thing saving us from complete tyranny even if the courts don't use their power to strike down laws often enough. You and the right wing Teatards are just a bunch of morons spewing hot air.
Individual rights is about centralized authority? That's pretty Orwellian.
Robo
Verified User
A power granted by the Constitution to a State is a granted ”RIGHT” of power, squeegee-brain! You’re just a muck-raking pea-brained nitwit.
Your problem with my above quote is what numb-nuts? Where does it even marginally or remotely imply that I oppose federal judicial review of State’s laws?
It is not, in the founders language. I don't think I have ever seen that ("right of power") clumsy usage before, but it certainly would not have been used by the founders. I think your usage of it here, smacks of a statist that is trying to minimize the moral grounding of individual rights by equating them to nothing more than government granted privileges or power.
It implies that you oppose judicial review because you were effusively agreeing with Silly Rabbit who was arguing against federal judicial review. Meanwhile, you continue to take exception to my libertarian position on States rights and support of the 14th amendment. You are not very coherent or concise. You are a moron who just likes to rant.
Robo
Verified User
Proper logical and honest interpretation of the 10th Amendment, is exactly what the Amendment says. The only powers delegated to the fucking feds are those enumerated in the Constitution as follows,
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
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.
And any other powers granted to the law making body, i. e. The Congress by amendments to the Constitution. All other laws are a granted ”RIGHT” of power by the Constitution to the States or the people Asshole!
So where is the Amendment to be found in the Constitution for the federal power to create Obama-Care Shit For Brains?
Robo
Verified User
Where’s the honest judicial review to be found in Washington of federal law Goober? For your information that’s where this conversation truthfully and honestly drifted. There is no honest, unbiased judicial review of federal law to be found anywhere. The federal courts are stacked with political ideologues, appointed by a political ideologue and confirmed by more political ideologues none of whom give a flying fuck about truthful righteous constitutionalism.
There is NO, I repeat NO constitutional authority for the federal government to establish or operate or enforce a national healthcare program!!! Obama-Care is simply legalized bastardization, corruption and willful ignorance of our Constitution. It’s a criminal action created by criminals and confirmed by other criminals and argued favorable to it by partisan scumbags, idiots, morons and leftwing assholes!!!!!.
They are not "rights." Nowhere in the enumertaion of powers granted to Congress do they refer to them as a "right of power." The constitution and the tenth amendment CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY refers to them simply as powers. It's pretty clear why. They did not wish to conflate the RIGHTS of individuals with the POWERS of government. You do. Why?
I don't support Obamacare, you FUCKING moron, or the decision in that case! Did I not make that clear? Does it have anything to do with the rant against Federal judicial review? It is really very inconsistent to at once rail against the courts for striking down laws that violate the constitution while railing against them for not doing so. Make up your mind.
Robo
Verified User
You can call them what the fuck ever you want Shit-For-Brains! What they actually are is ”Authority Of Actions Granted By A Constitution.” Since your only argument here is to quibble over defining rights vs. powers and everything else you post is mostly lies and bullshit proving your inability to read and interpret what you read, You are a total fucking bore and hardly worthy of serious conversation. So lop-head take your irrelevancy and horseshit somewhere where somebody gives a flying fuck about it!
You’ve been ask to prove that to be a reality, and you’ve failed miserably. Again, I challenge you to present my comments whereby I ”railed against the courts for striking down laws that violate the Constitution.” You are a blathering fucking idiot and liar that post your wet dreams and call them reality. You’re as sharp as a fucking bowling ball Goober, keep up the fucked up work. You’ll soon make the grade equal to that of Fatty Shitty Panties.
Support a woman's right to murder? Who could be such a pervert menace to back such a horrible deed?
evince
comrademaineman
dearthla
rune
zappy
twitchyliberal
christiecommunistfan
canceled.2014.2
dud
jarod
howard
poet....
And that's just from the top of my head. Good Lord, we have some real degenerate assholes on this forum, don't we?
Robo
Verified User
But Obama-Care has had your beloved federal judicial review Dick Head, how's it working out for ya?
So then rights are granted by the constitution?
States have no moral claim to their powers. Conflating those powers with rights of individuals is just a tactic used by neo confederate statists like Silly Rabbit to argue for tyranny. You are just a moron that is not capable of following the discussion and failed to understand his, mine or rose's points.
So it would be better without it? Wtf are you even talking about. It's a check not a cure all.
Robo
Verified User
Did I say “we’d be better off without it” Goober? Or maybe did I simply deliver the evidence to you that as it is it isn’t worth a flying fuck? Federal judicial review of federal law is a fucking joke Goober. It’s simply the fucking fox guarding the fucking hen-house.
You are an idiot who does little more than bitch and moan. If it's "not worth a flying fuck" then that implies we'd better off without it or no worse. I disagree.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Well said!
The inclination towards state over national governance was originally well intentioned. It was the product of decentralists and federalists, who crafted the position for fairly valid reasons.
a. Sub-national units tend toward bureaucracy less than unitary systems, because the governed populations are smaller.
b. Racial conflicts can be mitigated by establishing sub-national units with strong racial majorities, thus making representatives in the federal government protectors of minority interests.
But in modern advocates, the underlying humanist and individual-centered values aren't there. The position is degraded. You can't reasonably argue for federalism with authoritarian sub-national units.