The Constitution Mandates That The Federal Government Be A Fraction Of What It is.

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you serious?? Pls take the time to give that some thought.. How that plays out in the real world..

hell yes, i'm serious. there is no constitutional authority for the feds to mandate a minimum of infrastructure to the states. If a state fails to maintain their own infrastructure, that is on them. it's ultimately in the hands of the people of that state to then elect people to state positions who WILL maintain that state. the real world isn't in any way a constitutionally limited government. it's folly to consider it so, even worse to demand it be that way for the sake of convenience.

 

[Zake]

hell yes, i'm serious. there is no constitutional authority for the feds to mandate a minimum of infrastructure to the states. If a state fails to maintain their own infrastructure, that is on them. it's ultimately in the hands of the people of that state to then elect people to state positions who WILL maintain that state. the real world isn't in any way a constitutionally limited government. it's folly to consider it so, even worse to demand it be that way for the sake of convenience.

Roads are in the Constitution as a Federal power. Bridges and other related infrastructure are part of roads. The whole point of that was point A to B accessibility. Granted, I'm not advocating Federal control over neighborhood roads, but why are Americans all not better off if the basic network of roads across the country is complete and modern? It's like you want to bring back outhouses and stop running water

 

[Althea]

What part of "interstate" do you fail to comprehend? This is not a Social Republic...its a representative republic guaranteed a republican government at all levels. If your state needs something....it has the authority to provide for itself...BIG BROTHER is not a nanny, the only thing to be equal is the SHARED "levy" or "tax".

What you are suggesting is a "redistribution" of wealth....nope...nothing COMMUNIST about that at all..except the corruption that's clearly apparent for that failed system across the globe. If you want a better state...WORK FOR IT...you should try it. Don't depend upon the sweat of your "neighbor's brow". Typical Liberal or fake libertarian....you want and desire everything...yet you refuse to take on the responsibility to earn that which you desire....you think the world owes you because of your birth right.

A "union" exists in this nation for 3 simple reasons. 1. Common Defense 2. Interstate Commerce 3. The power to levy or tax both foreign powers and the states to provide BOTH a common defense and fair trade. The Fed has only the authority granted it by Constitutional mandate and representative common law. Its the STATES That birthed Big Brother...not the inversion. The Fed has nothing it does not TAKE FROM THE PEOPLE/STATES...proving where the real power rests in this nation.

If a state...any state can afford to pay the FEDERAL TAX at the pump...etc....that goes to maintain our roads and bridges...and send it to DC....they sure as hell could take that money themselves and fix that which needs to be fixed at the local and state level. If not...why not? Does the money "multiply" by magic when it goes into the federal coffers? Its not rocket science...its common sense. The money is there...its a matter of who holds the purse strings and the power to spend it, your state and local government or some brown nose political pimp thousands of miles away that knows rat shit about your local problems...who uses that money to purchase more political clout instead of using it for its designed purpose. There's that thing again....SOCIAL CORRUPTION.

Blah, blah, blah.

How many highways/bridges were in existence when your nonsensical references were penned? States always go to the Feds for money, which is why the Feds collect tax on fuel, etc. You just don't get it. Some climates require much more maintenance on roads than others.

 

[Althea]

and this is a problem.........how?

If you need to ask, then you surely cannot comprehend the answer

 

[Zake]

Blah, blah, blah.

How many highways/bridges were in existence when your nonsensical references were penned? States always go to the Feds for money, which is why the Feds collect tax on fuel, etc. You just don't get it. Some climates require much more maintenance on roads than others.

Is that true? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's an actual question. From what I've seen, the biggest difference in climate is winter plowing and related costs, but those are paid by States and local governments I believe. Intuitively, it seems population density would be must more of a factor. But then in the higher cost cities, there are way more people to pay for the higher infrastructure costs.

Again, not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just hadn't heard that claim before. My not knowing anything about it doesn't stop me from having an opinion on it, LOL

 

[Bill]

hell yes, i'm serious. there is no constitutional authority for the feds to mandate a minimum of infrastructure to the states. If a state fails to maintain their own infrastructure, that is on them. it's ultimately in the hands of the people of that state to then elect people to state positions who WILL maintain that state. the real world isn't in any way a constitutionally limited government. it's folly to consider it so, even worse to demand it be that way for the sake of convenience.

I asked you to ponder but it seems you posted instead.......

Stop signs aren't mentioned in the constitution either......

For 100 years now the Federal gubment has been investing in them, which you ride to work, to the store & off to visit gramma...... While you may not wish to pay for them, there is no doubt you continue to use them

Imagine the costs w/out them, if you can.. Imagine the inefficiencies in travel, the difficulties not to mention one of the main selling points-DEFENSE, & Lord knows you ppl are all about that...lol

A good example is Rome, long before the constitution.........

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Roads are in the Constitution as a Federal power. Bridges and other related infrastructure are part of roads. The whole point of that was point A to B accessibility. Granted, I'm not advocating Federal control over neighborhood roads, but why are Americans all not better off if the basic network of roads across the country is complete and modern? It's like you want to bring back outhouses and stop running water

the whole regulating interstate commerce was to prevent state monopolies and higher tax rates against disliked states, not to denote how, why, where, and when roads must be built and maintained because 'commerce!!!!!!'

and dispense with the hyperbole, it's like you want to go back to muskets and flintlocks.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If you need to ask, then you surely cannot comprehend the answer

in other words you can't logically explain yourself, so you'll give a non commital quip about how you can't explain yourself.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I asked you to ponder but it seems you posted instead.......

Stop signs aren't mentioned in the constitution either......

For 100 years now the Federal gubment has been investing in them, which you ride to work, to the store & off to visit gramma...... While you may not wish to pay for them, there is no doubt you continue to use them

Imagine the costs w/out them, if you can.. Imagine the inefficiencies in travel, the difficulties not to mention one of the main selling points-DEFENSE, & Lord knows you ppl are all about that...lol

A good example is Rome, long before the constitution.........

are you one of those with the idiotic beliefs that state constitutions are meaningless because we have the US constitution? every state constitution i've read specifically gives the legislature power to regulate highways, so there's your answer for stop signs. If you think the federal government gets to dictate, via constitutional power, where a stop sign goes and what speed limits can be set, you're seriously misinformed.

 

[Zake]

the whole regulating interstate commerce was to prevent state monopolies and higher tax rates against disliked states, not to denote how, why, where, and when roads must be built and maintained because 'commerce!!!!!!'

and dispense with the hyperbole, it's like you want to go back to muskets and flintlocks.

Roads have nothing to do with the "Commerce Clause," they are directly in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

And arguing that peripherals like bridges and tunnels aren't part of "roads" is like arguing that bullets are not covered by the second amendment, just guns

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Roads have nothing to do with the "Commerce Clause," they are directly in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

And arguing that peripherals like bridges and tunnels aren't part of "roads" is like arguing that bullets are not covered by the second amendment, just guns

'post roads' in the same sentence with post offices indicates that the roads they are talking about are for POSTAL services only. if a bridge or a tunnel needs to be on one of those post roads, obviously that's covered, but there is zero constitutional authority in Art. 1, Sec 8 for congress to build a road from bumville to bumfuck anywhere, USA.

 

[Zake]

'post roads' in the same sentence with post offices indicates that the roads they are talking about are for POSTAL services only. if a bridge or a tunnel needs to be on one of those post roads, obviously that's covered, but there is zero constitutional authority in Art. 1, Sec 8 for congress to build a road from bumville to bumfuck anywhere, USA.

That's ridiculous. They said "Post Offices AND Roads." Not Post Offices including roads. Don't you criticize us for trying to word parse rights like that?

How is what you just said any different than when Democrats say the second amendment says arms, not ammo?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's ridiculous. They said "Post Offices AND Roads." Not Post Offices including roads. Don't you criticize us for trying to word parse rights like that?

you copied and pasted the words, I can only assume from the specific Art and Sec directly, that says SPECIFICALLY Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" so how is that not taken to mean POST ROADS??????? that isn't parsing words or even redefining them, it's taking exactly what is written.

How is what you just said any different than when Democrats say the second amendment says arms, not ammo?

if one wanted to get extremely literal, ammo could actually be prohibited through commercial means....considering that lead balls were easy to make and keep, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about people making their own. I've done it and would do it again.

 

[Zake]

you copied and pasted the words, I can only assume from the specific Art and Sec directly, that says SPECIFICALLY Article I, Section 8: Congress has the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" so how is that not taken to mean POST ROADS??????? that isn't parsing words or even redefining them, it's taking exactly what is written.


if one wanted to get extremely literal, ammo could actually be prohibited through commercial means....considering that lead balls were easy to make and keep, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about people making their own. I've done it and would do it again.

Seems that "post roads" being strictly post office would be you EXPANDING my saying the major roads. Every road is used by the post office to transport and deliver mail. So you're saying the Feds can decide to pave every rural road at taxpayer expense as long as it's a through way or has a house or business that receives mail on it?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seems that "post roads" being strictly post office would be you EXPANDING my saying the major roads. Every road is used by the post office to transport and deliver mail. So you're saying the Feds can decide to pave every rural road at taxpayer expense as long as it's a through way or has a house or business that receives mail on it?

no, no, no. the constitution is not a living document, thus must be interpreted as it was written.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/45/post-office

 

[Bill]

are you one of those with the idiotic beliefs that state constitutions are meaningless because we have the US constitution? every state constitution i've read specifically gives the legislature power to regulate highways, so there's your answer for stop signs. If you think the federal government gets to dictate, via constitutional power, where a stop sign goes and what speed limits can be set, you're seriously misinformed.

Did I say anything about state constitutions??

For 100 years da evil gubment has been in the evil roads business...... You, & assuming you're not just another anchor baby, your forebears have been on those roads making your & their lives better........

Now I know communal betterment is anathema to some, but I do notice that even the assholist of the assholes use those roads, bridges & other services provided by the rest of us......

Society just isn't for everyone, THAT'S WHY GOD MADE CAVES & SMALL HOLES UNDER BIG ROCKS FOR THEM TO LIVE IN, ALONE & HAPPILY MISERABLE..

The Two Hermits
Related Poem Content Details
By Kahlil Gibran

Upon a lonely mountain, there lived two hermits who worshipped God
and loved one another.

Now these two hermits had one earthen bowl, and this was their only
possession.

One day an evil spirit entered into the heart of the older hermit
and he came to the younger and said, “It is long that we have
lived together. The time has come for us to part. Let us divide
our possessions.”

Then the younger hermit was saddened and he said, “It grieves
me, Brother, that thou shouldst leave me. But if thou must needs
go, so be it,” and he brought the earthen bowl and gave it to him
saying, “We cannot divide it, Brother, let it be thine.”

Then the older hermit said, “Charity I will not accept. I will
take nothing but mine own. It must be divided.”

And the younger one said, “If the bowl be broken, of what use would
it be to thee or to me? If it be thy pleasure let us rather cast
a lot.”

But the older hermit said again, “I will have but justice and mine
own, and I will not trust justice and mine own to vain chance. The
bowl must be divided.”

Then the younger hermit could reason no further and he said, “If
it be indeed thy will, and if even so thou wouldst have it let us
now break the bowl.”

But the face of the older hermit grew exceedingly dark, and he
cried, “O thou cursed coward, thou wouldst not fight.”

 

[Bill]

DAMN REPUBLICANS & THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ROADS & BRIDGES

 

[Zake]

no, no, no. the constitution is not a living document, thus must be interpreted as it was written.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/45/post-office

Of course it's a living document. The founders didn't imagine we'd live like we did in the eighteenth century.

So what are you claiming is not a "post road" then? To me, only roads on private property are not "post roads"

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course it's a living document. The founders didn't imagine we'd live like we did in the eighteenth century.

it is not a living document. it doesn't get reinterpreted every few decades by judges because we don't live like we did before. there is only one way to change or alter the constitution.

So what are you claiming is not a "post road" then? To me, only roads on private property are not "post roads"

I wouldn't think that simple concepts were difficult to understand. A 'post road' is a road built, maintained, and used by the postal service to go from one town, village, city to the next. nothing more, nothing less. just because a mailman walks or drives to every house in every town does not make every road a federal postal road.

just come out and say you want the federal government to be lord and master over all they oversee and be done with it.

 

[Zake]

it is not a living document. it doesn't get reinterpreted every few decades by judges because we don't live like we did before. there is only one way to change or alter the constitution.


I wouldn't think that simple concepts were difficult to understand. A 'post road' is a road built, maintained, and used by the postal service to go from one town, village, city to the next. nothing more, nothing less. just because a mailman walks or drives to every house in every town does not make every road a federal postal road.

just come out and say you want the federal government to be lord and master over all they oversee and be done with it.

So it seems we've come full circle. I argued we should have a good network of roads to travel the country, I don't want the Federal government to own all the local roads. You objected to that. I asked what you mean, now you seem to be back to what I said in the first place ...