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

[Robo]

You’re wrong.

Says you! What do you know?

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)).

Post a constitutional quote that “expresses” or “implies” a power of the federal government to finance infrastructure projects. I’ll wait.

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” (United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941))

By who? Oh! Some prejudiced biased partisan court ideologically hell bent on a more powerful authoritarian federal government. The literal text of the 10th amendment forbids the federal government from being involved in anything not enumerated and authorized for the feds to be involved in.

According to that absurd cort decision, the 10th amendment is rendered to a useless piece of shit! It’s toothless. It means nothing. The court might just as well wrote a new law proclaiming that the feds have the power to do whatever they want, the 10th amendment be damned! The opinion is absurd, politically motivated, corrupt and completely dishonest.

The Constitution in fact authorizes the Federal government to spend taxpayers’ money on the National infrastructure, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation.

Then of course your next post will prove your opinion with constitutional text, article and or amendment, right? I’ll wait!

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Bullshit! The Constitution exist as a contract between government and the people. The constitution exist to guarantee the proper and necessary role of government and to guarantee the inalienable rights, privileges of the people and not to guarantee the partisan, ideological biases of a gang of judges appointed by political partisan ideological Presidents. Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the political ideologies of politicians!

“The Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY and PROPER for carrying into execution the FORGOING POWERS and all other powers VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.”

What constitutional text confirms a NECESSARY investment in America’s infrastructure by the federal government?

What constitutional text awards a federal government investment in America’s infrastructure as being ”PROPER” ?

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!

If it’s not “in the Constitution,” it’s not CONSTITUTIONAL and the only way it can ever be constitutional is by the powers granted in Article 5.

You stand corrected.

You’re knocked down flat as being full of shit!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because that's how any civilized society works. Otherwise, you would have some states with great roads/bridges, and others with dirt roads and ferries.

So true, every State should have a minimal standard of infrastructure. Most infrastructure is done by the States, why is it a problem for the Federal government to ensure they all have that minimal level of roads, bridges and other infrastructure?

Hell......they even figured-that-out, in Canada!!!!​

"In the summer of 1962, Saskatchewan became the centre of a hard-fought struggle between the provincial government, the North American medical establishment, and the province's physicians, who brought things to a halt with the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors' strike. The doctors believed their best interests were not being met and feared a significant loss of income as well as government interference in medical care decisions even though Douglas agreed that his government would pay the going rate for service that doctors charged.

The success of the province's public health care program was not lost on the federal government."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#Medicare

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#Canada

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act#Health_insurance_before_the_CHA

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Doctors_for_Medicare​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bullshit! The Constitution exist as a contract between government and the people. The constitution exist to guarantee the proper and necessary role of government and to guarantee the inalienable rights, privileges of the people......

.....AND, it's been continually renegotiated.....just like Trumpy talks-about doing!!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution​

 

[Zake]

"Building up the poor" has never been successfully done by handing out other people's money to them. All that does is assure their reliance on the robbery of government. Limiting the excesses of BIG government and expecting limited government to stay out of the way with taxation and regulation and thereby allowing the private sector to create the economic conditions that offer a higher standard of living for all and oppertunities for the poor to get rich. That's how success is produced.

That's nice. I've clearly stated that handing out money is not my goal. You're going by your preconceptions of liberals and not listening to what I'm saying. Certainly they need to live in the short term, but the key is education, I keep saying that. The two parties need to sit down, put aside the past and ideology and create an education plan that raises teacher pay but also considers vouchers and whatever else we can do to get kids started on the right path. The economic opportunity you speak of is there, but those kids are rungs below that life line, they need more than the market will fix it

 

[Zake]

What you describe is nicely covered in Amendment 4. JUST GET A WARRANT following the directions in amendment 4.



"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." (Amendment 10)



Constitutionally, see amendment 4.



You've posted nothing that isn't covered by that "centuries old document!" "The Line" begins and ends with the literal text of the Constitution and not with the rubber-band, elastic corrupt imaginations of crooked political ideologues.

Let's focus on automobiles.

- On a license, what about the 14th amendment? Is granting a license to one driver and not another a violation of equal protection? Give an example in the civil war era when it was enacted that shows it's not a violation of equal protection.

- On getting a warrant, you're just arguing they need to get a warrant for everything, which is ridiculous. You you think they need a warrant for an electronic enhancement of a listening devise? It's a public conversation. And they need a warrant for something they can see in plain view in your car?

Someone needs to clarify where the line is for things that were enacted when they couldn't foresee modern technology

 

[Zake]

When you want to travel by land to someplace do you use a map to ESTABLISH the route you will follow? Do you have to build the roads and bridges? If you plan to stay at a motel/hotel along the way, Do you ESTABLISH which one you will stay at? Do you have to build the motel/hotel?



Of course and it should have and could have been constructed by the States and localities and maintained by same CONSTITUTIONALLY or an amendment to the Constitution should have been offered, passed and ratified before the federal government had any part in it.



I hate to burst your bubble, (no I don't,)modern plumbing was not invented and constructed by government!

I said establishing is an ambiguous word and creating the roads or identifying them is "establishing." Your arguing that establishing can mean identifying doesn't contradict that. It's also valid to say Nixon established the EPA, which meant creating it. And you apparently think they only put "roads" in the Constitution so the post office can get out a map and draw a yellow highlight over ones they like and say yep, that's it. Ridiculous. They wouldn't have bothered.

And swish, you completely missed my point on roads. Try driving from Miami to LA through the deep south without a national road network just driving on State roads. Good luck with that. And they did have that before Eisenhower and there wasn't remotely a national network of highways.

And swish again, I didn't say government put plumbing in your house, I was referring to your wanting a country where driving to the next town is an all day ordeal, depending on the State you live in

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Laughing, yeah, all those roads, it need to be stopped!

 

[Zake]

Silly comic strip. First of all, we need eminent domain. And second of all, someone needs to coordinate it all. I do agree that government doesn't physically build the roads and taxpayers pay for it. But government is HOW taxpayers pool the money and pay for it

 

[MAGA MAN]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

The 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear that only the things enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government are authorized for the feds to do. Otherwise, such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The States and the people are responsible for their State and local infrastructure and thereby the nation’s infrastructure through interstate cooperation.

The federal government’s overriding, avoiding and ignoring the Constitution is why America has a 20 trillion dollar national debt and it’s exploding annually. The federal government should be a fraction of what it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Article I Section 8: Post Roads.

 

[Robo]

That's nice. I've clearly stated that handing out money is not my goal. You're going by your preconceptions of liberals and not listening to what I'm saying. Certainly they need to live in the short term, but the key is education, I keep saying that.

There’s no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education.

The two parties need to sit down, put aside the past and ideology and create an education plan that raises teacher pay but also considers vouchers and whatever else we can do to get kids started on the right path. The economic opportunity you speak of is there, but those kids are rungs below that life line, they need more than the market will fix it

Again, there’s no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education. Education is a power choice reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The reason the inner-city’s ghetto public housing, (Democrat’s “slave quarters), where the Democrats house their black slaves is undereducated is simply because in the majority of cases those areas are governed by Democrats who deny their black slaves “school choice.” They also refuse to adequately provide proper police protections to those slave quarters and thereby proper schools have no decent and respectable environment to thrive in. The slave quarters public housing is a bastion of crime and murders because the Democrat government thereof creates a condition of fatherless families and a brood mare/stallion culture with the goal of producing more blacks, ignorant and impoverished to vote for more Democrats.

That’s your “education” situation in a nut shell.

 

[MAGA MAN]

You’re wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)).

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” (United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941))

The Constitution in fact authorizes the Federal government to spend taxpayers’ money on the National infrastructure, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation.

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

You stand corrected.

The court has been wrong numerous times. Almost half of the current court is wrong most of the time. You are the one who has been corrected.

 

[Zake]

There’s no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education.



Again, there’s no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education. Education is a power choice reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The reason the inner-city’s ghetto public housing, (Democrat’s “slave quarters), where the Democrats house their black slaves is undereducated is simply because in the majority of cases those areas are governed by Democrats who deny their black slaves “school choice.” They also refuse to adequately provide proper police protections to those slave quarters and thereby proper schools have no decent and respectable environment to thrive in. The slave quarters public housing is a bastion of crime and murders because the Democrat government thereof creates a condition of fatherless families and a brood mare/stallion culture with the goal of producing more blacks, ignorant and impoverished to vote for more Democrats.

That’s your “education” situation in a nut shell.

It's funny that you quoted my support for vouchers and lectured on me the problem is there are no vouchers. What I like about vouchers is that the only parents who are going to go to the trouble to get and use them are the motivated parents. They are the ones who are involved in their kids educations, they are self selecting that they are the ones who are involved and it's giving the kids who have the best chance to make it for that reason.

However, that is clearly not the whole picture as you describe it. Mayors of the big cities can't move money from the suburbs where the rich kids are all in the rich schools. You need qualified, decently paid teachers for the vast majority of the kids who are not going to take advantage of vouchers. We need to create a ladder. Starting with the ones ready to climb the ladder now makes sense, but then you need to keep working to get the others to that level

 

[Robo]

Let's focus on automobiles.

- On a license, what about the 14th amendment? Is granting a license to one driver and not another a violation of equal protection?

A driver’s license is not a right, it’s a privilege subject to State laws and test to rationally determine if drivers are old enough to drive and know how to obey driving laws and can exhibit the ability to actually drive a vehicle responsibly and safely. “Equal protection” is not relevant.

Give an example in the civil war era when it was enacted that shows it's not a violation of equal protection.

The question is purely absurd on its face. There were no motor vehicles during the Civil War. And again a driver’s license is not a right, it’s a privilege and the authority of State governments.

On getting a warrant, you're just arguing they need to get a warrant for everything, which is ridiculous.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Amendment 4, United States Constitution)

What part of that do you not understand?

You you think they need a warrant for an electronic enhancement of a listening devise?

YES! Read Amendment 4!

It's a public conversation.

What’s a “public conversation?”

And they need a warrant for something they can see in plain view in your car?

To do what with something in plain view in your car?

Someone needs to clarify where the line is for things that were enacted when they couldn't foresee modern technology

Amendment 4 is CLEAR from my point of view, how about you?

 

[Robo]

I said establishing is an ambiguous word and creating the roads or identifying them is "establishing." Your arguing that establishing can mean identifying doesn't contradict that.

Then why does Article One Section 8 say, “the Congress shall have the power to raise and “SUPPORT” Armies, and to “PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY?” But it only says






‘TO ESTABLISH” Post Offices and Post Roads?

It's also valid to say Nixon established the EPA, which meant creating it.

The federal government has no “CONSTITUTIONAL “ power to establish a EPA. Show me the article or amendment that says it does.

And you apparently think they only put "roads" in the Constitution so the post office can get out a map and draw a yellow highlight over ones they like and say yep, that's it. Ridiculous. They wouldn't have bothered.

That’s exactly what the constitutional authority to “establish’ post offices and post roads is, I’ll wait for your explanation of why it’s ridiculous.

And swish, you completely missed my point on roads. Try driving from Miami to LA through the deep south without a national road network just driving on State roads. Good luck with that. And they did have that before Eisenhower and there wasn't remotely a national network of highways.

My position IS NOT whether the Interstate highway system is benificial or not, my position is that Eisenhower had NO constitutional authority to establish and finance the Interstate highway system, no more than Thomas Jefferson had the constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase. Violations of the Constitution are hundreds or maybe thousands since before the ink had dried to this day.

And swish again, I didn't say government put plumbing in your house, I was referring to your wanting a country where driving to the next town is an all day ordeal, depending on the State you live in

You inferred that promoting the opinion that government is sworn to, and duty bound to follow the letter of the Constitution is akin to wishing to go back to outhouses to shit in, implying the absurdity that the Constitution would forbid government to allow for modern plumbing as though government were restricted by the Constitution from “establishing” it.

 

[Robo]

Article I Section 8: Post Roads.

I have already addresses that, read the whole thread. "To "establish" post offices and post roads is only the authority to decide where post offices would by constructed by State governments or the people and along which routs the mail would travel. "To establish" is no green light to finance anything. It's only the power to 'decide."

 

[Zake]

A driver’s license is not a right, it’s a privilege subject to State laws and test to rationally determine if drivers are old enough to drive and know how to obey driving laws and can exhibit the ability to actually drive a vehicle responsibly and safely. “Equal protection” is not relevant.



The question is purely absurd on its face. There were no motor vehicles during the Civil War. And again a driver’s license is not a right, it’s a privilege and the authority of State governments.

You have completely missed the entire discussion. I was not asking your opinion of these points, I was asking you who gets to decide? You seem to think the points I listed were my views. Some were, some were not. Some are obvious, some are not. That's the whole point. Someone has to decide.

While you missed the whole purpose of the discussion, that it is absurd IS my point. The founders knew there would have to be someone to clarify their amendments in terms of things they couldn't think of, like automobiles. Your opinion on all those points no matter how reasonable you think you are does not make it unambiguous law. Clearly searching your car should require a warrant. I wasn't arguing that. But no one in court is going to say it's what the founders meant because robo said so.

And whether driving is a right or a privilege, it is subject to the 14th amendment, the law must be applied equally. Does equally mean to everyone by skin color? By ability? By training? The States are allowing some to drive and prohibiting others. Can they say blacks can't drive? So, does the State get to decide who can drive? Yes, they can. But again, as long as it's based on the ability to drive safely. But no one is going to say OK because robo said so.

My favorite was your parsing "what is a public conversation?" You went to the Bill Clinton "it depends what the meaning of is is" school of debate

 

[Robo]

It's funny that you quoted my support for vouchers and lectured on me the problem is there are no vouchers. What I like about vouchers is that the only parents who are going to go to the trouble to get and use them are the motivated parents. They are the ones who are involved in their kids educations, they are self selecting that they are the ones who are involved and it's giving the kids who have the best chance to make it for that reason.

If vouchers are issued, they’re a State authority and responsibility. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in education!

The Inter-City issue will never be solved until the Democrats modern slavery vote buying system is understood and abolished by the blacks themselves.

 

[Zake]

I have already addresses that, read the whole thread. "To "establish" post offices and post roads is only the authority to decide where post offices would by constructed by State governments or the people and along which routs the mail would travel. "To establish" is no green light to finance anything. It's only the power to 'decide."

You said there is no power of the Federal government except to point to a road and say it's a "Post Road," which is categorically preposterous. They never would have put that in the Constitution if that's what it meant.

And you're still playing word games with "establish." When bars say "Established in 1953, they are not saying the bar was identified as a bar in 1953. You're argument is silly

 

[Zake]

Then why does Article One Section 8 say, “the Congress shall have the power to raise and “SUPPORT” Armies, and to “PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY?” But it only says






‘TO ESTABLISH” Post Offices and Post Roads?



The federal government has no “CONSTITUTIONAL “ power to establish a EPA. Show me the article or amendment that says it does.



That’s exactly what the constitutional authority to “establish’ post offices and post roads is, I’ll wait for your explanation of why it’s ridiculous.



My position IS NOT whether the Interstate highway system is benificial or not, my position is that Eisenhower had NO constitutional authority to establish and finance the Interstate highway system, no more than Thomas Jefferson had the constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase. Violations of the Constitution are hundreds or maybe thousands since before the ink had dried to this day.



You inferred that promoting the opinion that government is sworn to, and duty bound to follow the letter of the Constitution is akin to wishing to go back to outhouses to shit in, implying the absurdity that the Constitution would forbid government to allow for modern plumbing as though government were restricted by the Constitution from “establishing” it.

Non-sequitur. My point on the EPA was the definition of the word establish, you swished on that and addressed the Constitutionality of the EPA. I don't agree, but I'm not following your red herring. Address the points in discussion, in this case, the definition of the word "establish"

 

[Zake]

If vouchers are issued, they’re a State authority and responsibility. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in education!

The Inter-City issue will never be solved until the Democrats modern slavery vote buying system is understood and abolished by the blacks themselves.

The Federal government is involved in education. It's a national priority and is clearly in the general welfare to improve our national education effectiveness, it helps everyone to make taxpayers of welfare recipients as well as making them employees and consumers