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

[MAGA MAN]

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."

That's simply your own definition. Since Section 8 is a list of FedCo's responsibilities it is clear that those responsibilities are ongoing.

 

[Robo]

That's simply your own definition. Since Section 8 is a list of FedCo's responsibilities it is clear that those responsibilities are ongoing.

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 words "support" or "maintain" would have been used if financial obligations were intended, don't you think?

By what constitutional text do you determine the fed's power is ongoing? Any "ongoing" responsibilities for the feds have to be authorized by a constitutional amendment. Otherwise we get what we have today an ignored and violated Constitution. Article 5 is the Constitution's extension process for additional federal powers. The rights and authorities of the States and the people must be incorporated by amendment into any expanded federal government powers.

 

[Leonthecat]

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 words "support" or "maintain" would have been used if financial obligations were intended, don't you think?

By what constitutional text do you determine the fed's power is ongoing? Any "ongoing" responsibilities for the feds have to be authorized by a constitutional amendment. Otherwise we get what we have today an ignored and violated Constitution. Article 5 is the Constitution's extension process for additional federal powers. The rights and authorities of the States and the people must be incorporated by amendment into any expanded federal government powers.

Poor Bobo

 

[Robo]

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.

The “decisions” are decided by the Constitution, try reading it!

While you missed the whole purpose of the discussion, that it is absurd IS my point.

You make that accusation devoid of any text in the Constitution as evidence to support your mindless claims.

The founders knew there would have to be someone to clarify their amendments in terms of things they couldn't think of, like automobiles.

Explain rationally why and how the Constitution’s articles and amendments are invalid today. You’ve posted garbage examples and I’ve returned the Constitution’s article or amendment that nicely covers your examples.

Your opinion on all those points no matter how reasonable you think you are does not make it unambiguous law.

The Constitution is clear and relevant in today’s world.

Clearly searching your car should require a warrant. I wasn't arguing that.

Who say’s it doesn’t?

But no one in court is going to say it's what the founders meant because robo said so.

NO, Robo didn’t say so the Constitution said so! Again, try reading it!

And whether driving is a right or a privilege, it is subject to the 14th amendment, the law must be applied equally.

You Sr. Are a fucking tiring damned fool and a rhetorical idiot. Author an example of how the 14th amendment and “equal protection” can correlate with the issuance of a State driver’s license. I’ll wait!

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

Definition: You haven’t a fucking clue of what you say.

Again idiot, WHAT PUBLIC CONVERSATION are you talking about?

 

[Robo]

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.

I'll ask again, why is it "preposterous?"

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

Who's talking about "bars?" Did somebody "DECIDE" to open a bar?

 

[Robo]

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

Post the article or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved in the American education process.

Education is the authority of the State governments and or the people. (See amendment 10.)

 

[MAGA MAN]

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 words "support" or "maintain" would have been used if financial obligations were intended, don't you think?

By what constitutional text do you determine the fed's power is ongoing? Any "ongoing" responsibilities for the feds have to be authorized by a constitutional amendment. Otherwise we get what we have today an ignored and violated Constitution. Article 5 is the Constitution's extension process for additional federal powers. The rights and authorities of the States and the people must be incorporated by amendment into any expanded federal government powers.

Read Section 8 in it's entirety; they don't repeat the same term over and over again. It's merely a matter of prose, nothing more. By your argument, "To constitute Tribunals", because of a definition of "constitute" being "give legal or constitutional form to (an institution); establish by law", there would be no continued funding of inferior courts.

 

[Robo]

Read Section 8 in it's entirety; they don't repeat the same term over and over again. It's merely a matter of prose, nothing more. By your argument, "To constitute Tribunals", because of a definition of "constitute" being "give legal or constitutional form to (an institution); establish by law", there would be no continued funding of inferior courts.

I disagree! To "establish" as it relates to the post offices and post roads is not an authorization to build post offices or post roads, but it is an authorization for the feds to DELIVER THE MAIL and thereby financially fund and operate such institution. Likewise the funding for inferior federal courts because the federal courts in total are a power designated by the Constitution to the feds.

The objective of our founders relative to the constitutional contract, is to limit the federal government to only those things that the States and the people cannot do for themselves. The States can build post offices and post roads and court houses all by themselves.

 

[Zake]

The “decisions” are decided by the Constitution, try reading it!

OK, no one needs to decide, everyone reads the document and gets the same thing out of it, it means the same thing to everyone. New inventions, cars, planes, electronic equipment, they anticipated it all, it's all there. We just read it like the Bible and it answers all our questions in the divine spirit of the founding fathers.

I can't take you seriously. I clearly answered your question.

1) Article V changes rights

2) The Supreme Court is not to change rights, just clarify them, particularly as things like automobiles and electronics advance.

Clearly everyone isn't reading the Constitution and seeing the same thing. I've changed how I've seen some points over time. Your position no one has to arbitrate that is just silly

 

[Zake]

I'll ask again, why is it "preposterous?"

Because, duh, it's pointless. I would think you of all people would say if something is in the Constitution that doesn't provide anyone any real right or the government any real power, then putting in the words is dangerous as it is more opportunity to misconstrue it

Who's talking about "bars?" Did somebody "DECIDE" to open a bar?

You're acting like an eight year old at this point. I've repeatedly pointed out we're discussing the meaning of the word "establish." You keep deflecting as you are here again.

You are saying establish can mean identify. Agreed.

You are saying establish cannot mean to create, you're wrong. First when I said Nixon "established" the EPA meaning he created it, you came back with that was Unconstitutional, now you're saying who's talking about bars. We are talking about the word establish. If you want to debate me, cut the crap.

And seriously, you're trying parse "decide" as if that's what established means? They could have planned the bar a decade. The year on the door is the year they created the bar and opened it for business. You're really stretching now

 

[Zake]

Post the article or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved in the American education process.

Education is the authority of the State governments and or the people. (See amendment 10.)

Read the post you responded to. Not liking my answer does not make it not my answer

 

[Zake]

Poor Bobo

Poor troll. I don't care what your politics are. Since I've been on the site I've seen a lot of posters insulting and diverting, but they make some attempt at the conversation. You go from thread to thread just attacking people, I haven't seen a single point on the actual subject in any thread you've posted in from you

 

[Robo]

OK, no one needs to decide, everyone reads the document and gets the same thing out of it, it means the same thing to everyone. New inventions, cars, planes, electronic equipment, they anticipated it all, it's all there. We just read it like the Bible and it answers all our questions in the divine spirit of the founding fathers.

Yet you can’t produce a single thing that can’t be covered by the Constitution today.

I can't take you seriously.

Beause you’re an idiot!

I clearly answered your question.

1) Article V changes rights

2) The Supreme Court is not to change rights, just clarify them, particularly as things like automobiles and electronics advance.

What “rights” does Article 5 change?

All actions that do not violate any rights of life, liberty and property of others, are “individual rights” The Constitution makes that clear. A 5 year old child can understand that. The Supreme Court need not clarify individual rights, they’re elementary. The Courts exist simply to interpret the written laws created by the linguistic gymnastics of the other branch of government to assure that they pass muster with the Constitution.

Clearly everyone isn't reading the Constitution and seeing the same thing. I've changed how I've seen some points over time. Your position no one has to arbitrate that is just silly

Elaborate on “silly.” Silly how?

 

[MAGA MAN]

I disagree!

So?

 

[Robo]

So?

I provided the "SO." Your turn!

 

[Robo]

Because, duh, it's pointless. I would think you of all people would say if something is in the Constitution that doesn't provide anyone any real right or the government any real power, then putting in the words is dangerous as it is more opportunity to misconstrue it

Gibberish!

You are saying establish can mean identify. Agreed.

Relative to post offices and post roads, that’s exactly what it means.

You are saying establish cannot mean to create, you're wrong.

When did I say that? It can mean several things. Relative to post offices and post roads it means “IDENTIFY.” I’ve made that case before.

First when I said Nixon "established" the EPA meaning he created it, you came back with that was Unconstitutional, now you're saying who's talking about bars. We are talking about the word establish. If you want to debate me, cut the crap.

“Wanting to debate you,” is like wanting to talk to a brick wall. I’m not that interested in it. The only reason I’m conversing with you at all is because TV sucks! I’m starting to think better of it since you’ve shown that idiocy is your middle name.

And seriously, you're trying parse "decide" as if that's what established means?

Relative to post offices and post roads, that’s exactly what it means. I’ve made that case before!

They could have planned the bar a decade. The year on the door is the year they created the bar and opened it for business. You're really stretching now

More gibberish! TV is looking better and better!

 

[Robo]

Read the post you responded to. Not liking my answer does not make it not my answer

There's no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be involved with education!

 

[Robo]

Poor troll. I don't care what your politics are. Since I've been on the site I've seen a lot of posters insulting and diverting, but they make some attempt at the conversation. You go from thread to thread just attacking people, I haven't seen a single point on the actual subject in any thread you've posted in from you

He's a mindless idiot!

 

[MAGA MAN]

I provided the "SO." Your turn!

You provided nothing new to your argument.

 

[Robo]

You provided nothing new to your argument.

I refresh your memory,

The principle intent of the Constitution as created by the founders was to "LIMIT" [/b the powers of the federal government to only those things that the States and the people couldn't do for themselves. Thereby they didn't intend that the feds construct roads, bridges or even post offices and post roads because the States and the people can nicely do that for themselves. That's simply a "common sense" interpretation of the post roads clause. What say ye?