What are your core political beliefs?

[Robo]

Find a way to stop outsourcing without; Creating air like China's, selling toys with lead paint, paying workers that are the heart and soul of production horrible wages.

Oh! But that already happened. America’s air was cleaned up as far back as the 1950’s. Regulations were sane and manageable and wages never played a major roll on the bottom line of a business. Along came Al Gore and Global Warming and the insanity of the radical environmentalist left and their Democrat allies in government that turned the environmental regulation department on its ear and regulated business out of the country coupled with the Democrats relentless desire to extort more tax dollars to bribe the vote with and gave America the highest corporate tax rate on planet earth outsourcing thousands and thousands of American jobs.

Find a way to set profit limits.

The Soviet Union already tried that folly with communism and State control of all economy. So does the North Koreans and the Cubans that continue the stupidity So did China who finally saw the stupidity of it. Apparently, the left won’t get the message here in America until bankruptcy is actually recognized, huh?

Societies only thrive when the rich let the money trickle down.

Did you ever get a job from the poor? Maybe the rich would trickle down more of the profits if they could earn the profits in America, huh? End the slavery of socialism, idiot environmentalism, bribing the vote and crony capitalism!

Police government programs to fix them instead of growing them or ending them.

Federal government social programs and subsidies are unconstitutional.

Make a gun technology act. Congress with reason should be able to discuss new weapon technologies to see if the new technology more necessary in the hands of the right people or more dangerous in the hands of the wrong people.

Enforce the gun laws already on the books! Put armed security in our schools!

Legalize weed but keep other drugs illegal.

The whole Drug War is unconstitutional!

 

[Paul Siraisi]

My screed:

What I’ve seen in the United States and the world is a problem that everyone is aware of in their own way, and one that is easily captured in the idea of liberty, but which yet remains poorly articulated as a phenomenon of its own. This is the problem of excessive power.

The problem is there when people call for small government—except that huge corporations are there calling for the same thing. It’s there when people complain about corporate power—except that huge government is there complaining about the same thing. It’s there when popular revolutions result in mob tyranny, and when dictators replace mobs. It’s there when cultures are infested by rote ideologies, religious and otherwise. It’s there on both sides of the abortion issue.

Clumsy mass twitches like both the Tea Party and Occupy reflect an underlying popular disatisfaction with our country among both liberals and conservatives—a feeling that we are not running our own country, that our government isn’t ours. Regrettably, entrenched political parties—another form of excessive power—merely exploit our vague feelings to produce jingoistic rants against each other.

Moderation in all things, right? This is what opposes excessive power. But that doesn’t mean a flaccid averaging of all positions. Anything but, in a world where screaming marchers have staked out totalitarian claims on all points. This is all-out war! But above all it means being smart about everything. No more of this blind following. You . Must. Think. ‘Where is the excessive power in this situation?’ It will have a different shape every time, or it may not be a problem at all. And also, we can’t forget that all this is for one goal: human happiness, both long and short term. The one thing we can’t do is talk about excessive human happiness. We’re maximizing on that one.

So there’s the core position of some party that only has a default name of NonLibertarian right now, because it looks too Libertarian not to be Libertarian, which it certainly isn’t—pisses them off.


As for me:

I was raised a Democrat, but generally dislike Democrats, and bible thumpers, for similar reasons. I believe there are inadequate checks on corporate influence over our laws. There are also inadequate checks on politicians making hay from forced public charity in various disguises. I supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, voted for Obama in 2006 because he was black and for Romney in 2012 because he was a Mormon. I'll also vote for the first woman who comes along except, possibly, for Hillary Clinton, whom I don't hate (hell, I’d vote for Sarah Palin), but who I think might be an obstacle to getting rid of ObamaCare.

I’ve taken some heat for my recent seemingly racist, sexist and religion-ist approach to voting for presidents, but my point is to break those boundaries as soon as possible to clear out our cluttered national consciousness so we can focus on real problems. A mormon president would have been an educative kick in the groin to the religious right. And Obama has taken away some black excuses. I think we put too much stock in the presidency as an office containing some kind of intellectual genius who will lead us into the light with h/h ideas (not that this is impossible—especially if we were to re-instate the Electoral College in its original function). The president is largely a symbol around or against which other much greater forces rally. S/he first and foremost presides, and is today elected according to popular criteria that are no better than a Miss America contest. We the People are much more powerful than that, and it’s high time we took some responsibility for ourselves.

Health care:

Wanting to get rid of ObamaCare is not the same as thinking our health care system doesn’t need drastic restructuring. In fact ObamaCare isn’t drastic enough.

There is a proposal out there for single payer catastrophic insurance only. The problem with the health care system is the use of "payers" who are not you and me for routine care. Who ever heard of using a risk-based system that way in any other field? This drives costs up by hiding costs from us--except when it comes time to pay premiums, which is why there are so many 'uninsured'. They are not 'uninsured' they are 'NO DEMAND AT THAT PRICE'. We are stuck trying to figure out how to pay ridiculously high costs for ridiculously ineffective procedures, rather than trying to figure out why costs are so high.

Social Security: Preserve it, with an opt-out feature.

Size of government: The federal government needs to be far smaller and more efficient than it currently is. Lower taxes, less spending, less debt. Above all, efficiency.

Unions: Are necessary in the face of corporate power. But unions are a more dangerous thing than corporate power, and need to be strictly regulated.

Education: We need a national curriculum. We need to break teachers' unions and eliminate tenure.

Drugs: The NonLibertarian party has no problem with legalizing drugs if states want to go that way. But pot is bad for you. I stopped years ago after noticing it was detroying my memory.

Taxes: People who call not increasing taxes "cuts" are not to be trusted. People should listen more carefully to the Business argument: We must grow our way out of our economic problems. There is no other way. Not that we don't need some taxes.

Abortion: The right to life can be agreed by non-magical thinkers to correspond to sentience of the foetus, i.e. probably around week 23, or roughly in keeping with the current federal standard of 22 weeks. If states want to enact laws starting at 22 weeks, let them. If Christians want to make up stories about the soul, screw them.

Guns: Own responsibly. But maybe America is too sick for that.

Foreign policy: Hitler - Holocaust - Israel. Let’s not forget how it went, and what concerns us. Nazism, Japanese imperialism, Communism and Islamism have been/are world phenomena. Nasty Nations with Nukes are among us. They have touched us and had/have the ability and the desire to make the world an unpleasant place for us. Today a whole region, and a whole accompanying religion, are busily churning out one huge war chant. Doing nothing is probably an extremely dangerous option. 'Doing something' in this context involves some form of quite intensive intervention. It doesn’t have to involve killing people (but sure doesn’t have to exclude it), but it does at a minimum involve putting our noses deep in other peoples' business.


Finally, for those strutting around claiming that Liberals are the only people in favor of:
Civil Rights
Women’s sufferage
Social Security
National Parks
Clean Air
Clean Water
Minimum Wage
Worker Saftey
Consumer Protection.

There were Republicans who voted for all these things. I’ll vote for all those things (within reason). I’m no Liberal.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then why did you make the following quote?

Seems you’re the master of contradicting yourself, huh?

Because words have context, you myopic moron. Yes, people can "read and understand" plain English, but that doesn't mean they understand the context and intent of what they read. Maybe you are so devoid of understanding when it comes to "context" and what that word means, that you simply don't comprehend what I am saying, but just because you can read something easily, doesn't mean you understand what you read. I've not contradicted jack shit.

I have explained Goober, that the courts are necessary to “interpret” THE LAW to confirm or deny THE LAW’S validity relative to the confines of the Constitution.

Why do we need them to confirm or deny anything, if the document is so easy to read and understand? There shouldn't be anything that needs "interpreting" if the Constitution is easy to read and understand. A law either IS or ISN'T abiding by the easily-read-and-understood Constitution. This should take no deliberation at all. In fact, we shouldn't even need a court to overturn unconstitutional law, all we should have to do is take a copy of our constitution to the person who is trying to enforce the law and show them how easy it is to understand, what they are doing is not constitutional, and they will understand this because the Constitution is so universally easy to understand.

They’re not studying THE CONSTITUTION Goober, They’re studying CASE LAW that has been challenged on constitutional principles!

No, they aren't studying case law, when they determine Constitutionality. They may use case law to argue one side or another regarding certain issues, but the point of the SCOTUS is to determine Constitutionality, not what case law says. Case law is a matter of public record, we don't need a SCOTUS to study it and tell us what it says.

That’s what I do Goober!

What do you do? Run around a half-assed message board being a total ass? You lack the mental wattage to interpret the expiration date on your cottage cheese, much less, the constitution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OH! But it is CLEAR Goober as Thomas Jefferson explained.

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say...

Whoa, whoa... wait a minute... what the fuck you mean, "that is to say?" No, no, no, sir! If the Constitution is "easy to read and understand" then we simply shouldn't ever need you to explain "that is to say" when it comes to what it says. Whenever you use the words "that is to say" it means you are about to "interpret" what was just said. I know that might just shock the living fuck out of you, since you believe this document is so universally understood, but that's what you are doing.

Again Goober, you contradict yourself!

No, again, you totally miss the context of what was said. You have a real fucking problem with context. SCOTUS cases are not determined based on personal politics. Justices may very well vote based on personal politics, but the majority opinion which has to be written on every decision reached by the court, has to be rooted in constitutional finding by the court. They simply can't make a ruling and say..."well, this ruling is because we politically believe in certain things that aren't in the constitution, and just think it would be a good idea..."

There’s no doubt what the judges in today’s world are doing. All one needs to do is look at the decisions they make. The majority opinion of the court is always based on POLITICAL IDEOLOGY and has little to nothing to do with the actual scripture of the Constitution. If a court decision meets constitutional muster it only does so by accident not by any loyalty to constitutionalism.

All one needs to do, is read the majority and dissenting opinions of the court, issued on every ruling, which spells out the specific constitutional points of argument for each side, and the finding of prevailing constitutionality by the court. You may totally disagree with their interpretation of the constitution and finding, but they did base the ruling on the constitution and not personal politics. NEVER has there been a case decided by SCOTUS without a written dissertation of a constitutional interpretation, as the basis for their ruling.

Horseshit Goober! The court’s decisions are simply based on the majority’s politically biased opinion of the case at issue. They don’t give a tinker’s damn about the Constitution!

Just about every human alive, bases their opinions and views on what they believe, or their "politics." We can't avoid this because it's human nature. However, a SCOTUS decision has to be written up in an "opinion" released to the public, and we generally get one from the majority and one from the minority, the ruling interpretation of constitutionality, and and the challenging view. NEVER is the case that these opinions are presented on any basis other than what is interpreted in the constitution.

Just because they may have rejected what YOUR interpretations may have been, doesn't mean they haven't conformed to the constitution or that they "don't give a damn" about it. It just means (brace yourself) they don't agree with YOUR interpretation!

Of course Goober, that’s because they view everything through politically biased bifocals!!!!

As do you, as does everyone.

 

[Robo]

Because words have context, you myopic moron. Yes, people can "read and understand" plain English, but that doesn't mean they understand the context and intent of what they read.

If folks don’t understand the relationship of words one to the other Goober then they don’t understand the language period! Like you they’re simply babbling idiots!

Maybe you are so devoid of understanding when it comes to "context" and what that word means, that you simply don't comprehend what I am saying

I comprehend the fact that you now realize that you’ve been caught in another contradiction in your babbling and you’re trying pathetically and unsuccessfully to lie your idiot way out of it.

but just because you can read something easily, doesn't mean you understand what you read. I've not contradicted jack shit.

Speak for yourself Goober! It’s perfectly apparent you have severe difficulties comprehending the English language or making rational arguments.

Why do we need them to confirm or deny anything, if the document is so easy to read and understand? There shouldn't be anything that needs "interpreting" if the Constitution is easy to read and understand. A law either IS or ISN'T abiding by the easily-read-and-understood Constitution. This should take no deliberation at all.

Because Goober, it’s not the Constitution that needs deliberation over, it’s the written laws of the law makers, many of whom are lawyers skilled in linguistic gymnastics and intentional confusions of the English language, unlike the Constitution. Our founders intentions were not to confuse the average human intelligence but rather to construct the Constitution in plain uncomplicated language so that we could know our rights and privileges and the limits of government. Most modern law makers have no such intensions. As a matter of fact it is known that the fucking law makers themselves don’t even bother to read most of that crap. As Nancy Pelosi noted they just “pass it to find out what’s in it.”

I realize Goober that YOU do need others to interpret the Constitution for you, but the fact remains that folks of average intelligence who are also honest need little to no such tutoring.

 

[Robo]

Whoa, whoa... wait a minute... what the fuck you mean, "that is to say?" No, no, no, sir! If the Constitution is "easy to read and understand" then we simply shouldn't ever need you to explain "that is to say" when it comes to what it says. Whenever you use the words "that is to say" it means you are about to "interpret" what was just said. I know that might just shock the living fuck out of you, since you believe this document is so universally understood, but that's what you are doing.

It was Thomas Jefferson that made the defining statement Goober, not I. All I did was present the Jeffersonian evidence for you since I claim no such intellectual standing equal to Jefferson. Of course Jefferson made the statement because even in those early days of the union, politicians were attempting to pervert the general welfare clause in order to make unconstitutional law.

No, again, you totally miss the context of what was said. You have a real fucking problem with context. SCOTUS cases are not determined based on personal politics. Justices may very well vote based on personal politics,

Mercy be! Another oxymoron contradiction by the forum moron!

but the majority opinion which has to be written on every decision reached by the court, has to be rooted in constitutional finding by the court. They simply can't make a ruling and say..."well, this ruling is because we politically believe in certain things that aren't in the constitution, and just think it would be a good idea..."

Well Goober since the Court is the final arbiter, why the fuck can’t they make their decisions based on political ideology? Who the fuck is going to prevent it?

All one needs to do, is read the majority and dissenting opinions of the court, issued on every ruling, which spells out the specific constitutional points of argument for each side, and the finding of prevailing constitutionality by the court. You may totally disagree with their interpretation of the constitution and finding, but they did base the ruling on the constitution and not personal politics. NEVER has there been a case decided by SCOTUS without a written dissertation of a constitutional interpretation, as the basis for their ruling.

They’re fucking lawyers Goober! Their expertise is complicating language they’re fucking used car salesmen! Reading a majority or minority opinion of the Court is like reading the fucking tax code on steroids. The last one written by Roberts on Obamacare is totally senseless babblings and utter nonsense and done intentionally so. The crooked bastard wanted to “cover up” the fact that the Court IS a politically biased gang of cronies. He gave Obama his unconstitutional law then complicated it with omissions and restrictions that will need be argued for years to come. In effect the rightist Roberts sided with the leftist on the Court to obscure the fact that the Court is made up of politically biased bastards and he gave the rightist raw meat to use against Obamacare. The simple and undeniable fact is Goober, Obamacare like every federal social program is totally unconstitutional by the simple fact that follows,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If folks don’t understand the relationship of words one to the other Goober then they don’t understand the language period! Like you they’re simply babbling idiots!

If someone makes the statement: "He likes to clean his balls before he plays." Can you explain what they have told us? I can come up with literally millions of such statements, which can be interpreted differently, depending on context. A simple three-letter word like "set" can mean 100 (or more) different things, depending on context. So we can't say that because the Constitution is "easy to read" that it's also easy to understand and comprehend intended meaning and context.

I comprehend the fact that you now realize that you’ve been caught in another contradiction in your babbling and you’re trying pathetically and unsuccessfully to lie your idiot way out of it.

I've not been caught in any contradiction, you're just proving to everyone how you only consider personal understanding of context, and nothing else. However you read something, that is what it HAS to mean, what YOU think it means. So it doesn't really matter what I post, or what I mean by it, you are going to assign your own meaning, that's the only possible meaning which can exist.

Speak for yourself Goober! It’s perfectly apparent you have severe difficulties comprehending the English language or making rational arguments.

I have no problems with either. In order to begin comprehending English, and this is explained to every person who is ever taught to speak English, you have to understand that words can mean completely different things, depending on context of how they are used, and what meaning is applied, as well as how other words used may influence the context or meaning.

Because Goober, it’s not the Constitution that needs deliberation over, it’s the written laws of the law makers, many of whom are lawyers skilled in linguistic gymnastics and intentional confusions of the English language, unlike the Constitution. Our founders intentions were not to confuse the average human intelligence but rather to construct the Constitution in plain uncomplicated language so that we could know our rights and privileges and the limits of government. Most modern law makers have no such intensions. As a matter of fact it is known that the fucking law makers themselves don’t even bother to read most of that crap. As Nancy Pelosi noted they just “pass it to find out what’s in it.”

Hey, I'm not here to defend Nancy Pelosi, lawyers, law makers, or the art of "linguistic gymnastics." We are discussing the Constitution. Yes, it was written in uncomplicated language, but that does not mean it is easy to understand. As I pointed out, "set" is a simple three-letter word, it has hundreds of meanings. If I came up to you on the street and simply said the word "set" would you know what I was communicating to you? No, I would need to add a few more words to "set" in order for you to make some rationalization for the context. But I could add a few more words, and still, the context may be unclear, and it doesn't matter how simple these words are to read. Now, unfortunately, "set" is not a unique or unusual word, most of our words do have multiple meanings, go look at any dictionary.

So people will often read a sentence of these words, and derive a completely different interpretation than the author intended when he wrote the words. You can say, oh...it's simple, they meant this or that... but someone else is reading the same sentence, and they don't interpret these words the same way as you have. They believe it is just as conceivable their interpretation is what was intended. We have to dig deeper than the idea of "simple words in plain English" and look at what the Founding Fathers were discussing in the Federalist Papers, because that is where they made the more detailed arguments for or against different ideas and interpretations. If you are able to get into the way they used language back then, and actually stick with reading the Federalist Papers, you can gain a complete understanding of every single "simple word" they wrote. We sometimes forget, they argued for 12 years over this... that's about as long as most of us have been on the message boards. All of the relevant pinhead issues were debated, addressed or dismissed in the end, and we had nearly every debate we're currently having between left, right, and 'libertarian' back then. A system and process was established so that we can Amend the Constitution, and we have done this numerous times.

I realize Goober that YOU do need others to interpret the Constitution for you, but the fact remains that folks of average intelligence who are also honest need little to no such tutoring.

If you stop smoking meth and posting, you will start to realize, you are having an argument with someone who is not making the arguments you believe they have challenged you with. Where have I said a thing about needing someone to interpret the constitution for me? What do average intelligence and honesty have to do with comprehending words have different meaning and context, and the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers as a guide to what they meant? Where did I say I needed to tutor you? I mean, I know that I am schooling your ass right now, but I didn't gloat.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the childrens' laughter remind us how we used to be.

I believe it is ironic that every person who "thanked" you for this post insists a mother should have the right to kill her children......

 

[Robo]

If someone makes the statement: "He likes to clean his balls before he plays." Can you explain what they have told us? I can come up with literally millions of such statements, which can be interpreted differently, depending on context. A simple three-letter word like "set" can mean 100 (or more) different things, depending on context. So we can't say that because the Constitution is "easy to read" that it's also easy to understand and comprehend intended meaning and context.

Where can we find the ball washing statement in the Constitution? Sad that you feel the need to resort to absurdities. You presented the ”general welfare” clause before, and that was easily interpreted by Thomas Jefferson. There is only one honest and accurate interpretation and that is so apparently EASY to see.

If the general welfare clause can be interpreted in any other way than Jefferson presented, then surely you can answer Jefferson’s assertions that any other interpretation would render the rest of the entire Constitution irrelevant and government could and likely would use it to any good or evil it so desired. So let’s see you deny that fact?

As a matter of fact it’s because of fucking idiots like you that government has actually used the general welfare clause to do the evils of government and create the humongous unconstitutional, authoritarian federal government that so-called conservatives claim to detest.

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)

The full clause reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[.]” The clause is clearly about taxes. It mentions “duties, imposts and excises” both before and after it’s reference to the “general welfare.” Taxes are the "what" of the clause, to provide for the general welfare is merely the "why." The clause gives Congress power to levy various taxes, nothing more.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I want to live in a lawful, productive, society where families are strong, and the majority of Americans are generally well behaved.

Not exactly an ideal situation to enjoy freedom though. And I would ask you to define "family" and "well behaved". There are different types of family units, and the strength of those depends more on the individuals. Also, the term "well behaved" can mean anything from a rigidly controlled group to some wild partiers who harm no one.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

It is my opinion that the Constitution is easy to read and to interpret. Those who claim otherwise usually fall into the camp of not liking what it says.

I also think that in general it should be read through the lens of limiting the powers of the federal government not expanding them which is what has been happening since Lincoln.

The reason people want interpreted is because they want you to believe it says things that it really doesn't. Case in point Roe v Wade. Forget your personal opinions about whether a woman should be allowed to murder a baby. Even liberals admit it was bad constitutional law. You mean to tell me that it took almost 100 years to find the unnoticed right to privacy? Bullshit

 

[Damocles]

It is my opinion that the Constitution is easy to read and to interpret. Those who claim otherwise usually fall into the camp of not liking what it says.

I also think that in general it should be read through the lens of limiting the powers of the federal government not expanding them which is what has been happening since Lincoln.

The reason people want interpreted is because they want you to believe it says things that it really doesn't. Case in point Roe v Wade. Forget your personal opinions about whether a woman should be allowed to murder a baby. Even liberals admit it was bad constitutional law. You mean to tell me that it took almost 100 years to find the unnoticed right to privacy? Bullshit

There is an Amendment 9 that understands that the people have rights that are not enumerated, noticing that later and making a decision based on that understanding isn't necessarily "bad law".

In this case the court decided in your favor, at least the one you espouse here, and decided that the government did not have a power to tell people what to do under certain circumstances. So, why do you believe that the court, by limiting the power of the government as you stated you wanted, decided somehow in allowing the government more power?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

There is an Amendment 9 that understands that the people have rights that are not enumerated, noticing that later and making a decision based on that understanding isn't necessarily "bad law".

In this case the court decided in your favor, at least the one you espouse here, and decided that the government did not have a power to tell people what to do under certain circumstances. So, why do you believe that the court, by limiting the power of the government as you stated you wanted, decided somehow in allowing the government more power?

What you cite sounds well and good, but your rights don't include infringing on the right of another. I would argue that murdering another is a pretty big infringement.

That being said. There is no right to privacy spelled out in the US Constitution. Unless of course you think it took 100 years to finally "interpret". That must mean all those who interpreted prior to the Warren court just didn't get it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That being said. There is no right to privacy spelled out in the US Constitution. Unless of course you think it took 100 years to finally "interpret". That must mean all those who interpreted prior to the Warren court just didn't get it.

isn't there a 4th Amendment??? well, maybe not anymore now that I think about it.

 

[Damocles]

What you cite sounds well and good, but your rights don't include infringing on the right of another. I would argue that murdering another is a pretty big infringement.

That being said. There is no right to privacy spelled out in the US Constitution. Unless of course you think it took 100 years to finally "interpret". That must mean all those who interpreted prior to the Warren court just didn't get it.

Again, recognizing that there is an Amendment 9 written as such:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Pretty much makes it clear that there are some rights retained by people that may not be enumerated in the Constitution. Saying that it isn't enumerated doesn't make it necessarily "bad law" nor even extra-constitutional. Considering this is one of the Big 10, could it be conceivable that limiting government power by underlining and defining rights of "The People" that are not specifically enumerated is actually something that is quite constitutional?

This particular argument against Roe v. Wade is particularly troubling because it ignores part of the Constitution, an actual Amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifically points out that not every right of "The People" (that's us, the government, the citizens of the USofA) is enumerated...

One can argue that the right of the progeny overcomes the right of Privacy of the individual, one can argue many ways against legal abortion, but saying that because the Right is not enumerated that it doesn't exist means one must ignore one of the Bill of Rights and pretend that only rights listed in the document exist. That's a fool's argument, and extra-constitutional in and of itself.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Damocles]

What you cite sounds well and good, but your rights don't include infringing on the right of another. I would argue that murdering another is a pretty big infringement.

That being said. There is no right to privacy spelled out in the US Constitution. Unless of course you think it took 100 years to finally "interpret". That must mean all those who interpreted prior to the Warren court just didn't get it.

Again, recognizing that there is an Amendment 9 written as such:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Pretty much makes it clear that there are some rights retained by people that may not be enumerated in the Constitution. Saying that it isn't enumerated doesn't make it necessarily "bad law" nor even extra-constitutional. Considering this is one of the Big 10, could it be conceivable that limiting government power by underlining and defining rights of "The People" that are not specifically enumerated is actually something that is quite constitutional?

This particular argument against Roe v. Wade is particularly troubling because it ignores part of the Constitution, an actual Amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifically points out that not every right of "The People" (that's us, the citizens of the USofA) is enumerated...

One can argue that the right of the progeny to live overcomes the right of Privacy of the individual, one can argue many ways against legal abortion, but saying that because the Right is not enumerated that it doesn't exist means one must ignore one of the Bill of Rights and pretend that only rights listed in the document exist. That's a fool's argument, and extra-constitutional in and of itself.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no Amendment that extends the powers of Government past those listed, however the rights of the people are pretty much unlimited, we can further restrict the government using Amendment 9, but the government cannot take more power without a specific Amendment granting that power.

 

[Robo]

We are discussing the Constitution. Yes, it was written in uncomplicated language, but that does not mean it is easy to understand.

So, in other words uncomplicated language is complicated? Like I said Goober you’re the master of contradictions and oxymorons. Uncomplicated language Goober might be complicated in your pea-brain, but for most folks “uncomplicated language” means they’re not confused by it . Of course your post prove that confusion/stupidity is your middle name.

As I pointed out, "set" is a simple three-letter word, it has hundreds of meanings. If I came up to you on the street and simply said the word "set" would you know what I was communicating to you? No, I would need to add a few more words to "set" in order for you to make some rationalization for the context. But I could add a few more words, and still, the context may be unclear, and it doesn't matter how simple these words are to read. Now, unfortunately, "set" is not a unique or unusual word, most of our words do have multiple meanings, go look at any dictionary.

Like you said Goober, “we’re discussing the Constitution.”

So, in that context what is your confused argument concerning the general welfare clause which you claim has more than one meaning?

I say it means exactly what Jefferson says it means, that being, that it only gives the Congress the power to TAX and nothing more and if it did mean the power of Congress to do whatever Congress deemed in the general welfare as Jefferson noted it would make the rest of the Constitution irrelevant and in effect reduce the Constitution to “a single phrase” allowing Congress to do good or evil by their whims.

What say ye Goober?

 

[Robo]

We are discussing the Constitution. Yes, it was written in uncomplicated language, but that does not mean it is easy to understand.

So, in other words uncomplicated language is complicated? Like I said Goober you’re the master of contradictions and oxymorons. Uncomplicated language Goober might be complicated in your pea-brain, but for most folks “uncomplicated language” means they’re not confused by it . Of course your post prove that confusion/stupidity is your middle name.

As I pointed out, "set" is a simple three-letter word, it has hundreds of meanings. If I came up to you on the street and simply said the word "set" would you know what I was communicating to you? No, I would need to add a few more words to "set" in order for you to make some rationalization for the context. But I could add a few more words, and still, the context may be unclear, and it doesn't matter how simple these words are to read. Now, unfortunately, "set" is not a unique or unusual word, most of our words do have multiple meanings, go look at any dictionary.

Like you said Goober, “we’re discussing the Constitution.”

So, in that context what is your confused argument concerning the general welfare clause which you claim has more than one meaning?

I say it means exactly what Jefferson says it means, that being, that it only gives the Congress the power to TAX and nothing more and if it did mean the power of Congress to do whatever Congress deemed in the general welfare as Jefferson noted it would make the rest of the Constitution irrelevant and in effect reduce the Constitution to “a single phrase” allowing Congress to do good or evil by their whims.

What say ye Goober?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I believe that, as a temporary* measure, I should be given absolute power.

*permanent

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I say it means exactly what Jefferson says it means, that being, that it only gives the Congress the power to TAX and nothing more and if it did mean the power of Congress to do whatever Congress deemed in the general welfare as Jefferson noted it would make the rest of the Constitution irrelevant and in effect reduce the Constitution to “a single phrase” allowing Congress to do good or evil by their whims.

No, your indeed wrong. There has been a debate about this from the time of the founders themselves. Madison held that the General Welfare clause didn't have any effect, and that congress could only spend tax revenue on things explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Hamilton held that it did grant congress some sort of general spending power, and, for his part, he embarrassed Madison by reading Madison's own words in congress: "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

This does not give congress a power to do anything they like for "the general welfare", just the power a general power to spend tax money on things "for the general welfare". No one has ever argued the former seriously, it's only discussed among the constitutionally ignorant. So, no, this interpretation doesn't render the rest of the constitution irrelevant. There are a lot of things that don't involve spending money. For instance, economic regulations can't stem from the general welfare clause, they have to rely on the interstate commerce clause.