SmarterthanYou
rebel
why are you purposefully applying the juxtaposition? can you also point out what contractual obligation an individual has to obtain a drivers license or insurance?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
why are you purposefully applying the juxtaposition? can you also point out what contractual obligation an individual has to obtain a drivers license or insurance?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
don't ask him hard questions, he's a liberal.....
Don't debunk conservative canards, he's a PiMP.
http://www.blogster.com/southwesterngrad/dispelling-the-myth-that-48-of-americans-pay-no-taxes-1
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
why are you purposefully applying the juxtaposition? can you also point out what contractual obligation an individual has to obtain a drivers license or insurance?
Why won't you answer my question?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
because it's irrelevant that there are any penalties for non crimes.Why won't you answer my question?
now, where does the state have the authority to regulate the means of travel a free person can utilize?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
because it's irrelevant that there are any penalties for non crimes...
Are you saying there are no penalties for driving without a license or state-mandated insurance?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Are you saying there are no penalties for driving without a license or state-mandated insurance?
none that are applicable to me.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
none that are applicable to me.
So "laws for thee but not for me" is your motto?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that would apply if I had also said that those penalties should be enforced upon you. I didn't say that though, so no. your premise and statement are fatally flawed. I don't know what state YOU live in, but i'm pretty sure that it doesn't have the power or authority to require you to get a drivers license for you to travel.So "laws for thee but not for me" is your motto?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
that would apply if I had also said that those penalties should be enforced upon you. I didn't say that though, so no. your premise and statement are fatally flawed. I don't know what state YOU live in, but i'm pretty sure that it doesn't have the power or authority to require you to get a drivers license for you to travel.
Should the government have the power to require a license to operate aircraft?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
only for commercial purposes, like public airliners or shipping companies.Should the government have the power to require a license to operate aircraft?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
only for commercial purposes, like public airliners or shipping companies.
Interesting. So you support unlicensed/unregulated operation of private aircraft, but think applying different standards to commercial aircraft is OK?
Is that in the Constitution?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Interesting. So you support unlicensed/unregulated operation of private aircraft, but think applying different standards to commercial aircraft is OK?
Is that in the Constitution?
commerce clause. ever heard of it?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
what about them? until someone can show unequivocal proof that the constitution gives governments the power and authority to regulate the means that a person can freely travel, I see them as unconstitutional and can be ignored with impunity.
Amendment X
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.
*Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here is unequivocal proof the Constitution gives governments the power and authority to regulate pretty much anything that isn't forbidden in Article 1 Sec 10. And you might THINK you can "ignore with impunity" but the fact is, you can't, when it comes to this. There is most certainly punitive punishment for driving without a licence, and if you ignore that, you'll be sitting in prison.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
commerce clause. ever heard of it?
Yes.
So you support unlicensed/unregulated operation of private aircraft, but think applying different standards to commercial aircraft is OK?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Yes.
So you support unlicensed/unregulated operation of private aircraft, but think applying different standards to commercial aircraft is OK?
obviously. so did the framers, else they would not have made the commerce clause. and it's not 'different' standards. it's commerce instead of private travel.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Here is unequivocal proof the Constitution gives governments the power and authority to regulate pretty much anything that isn't forbidden in Article 1 Sec 10. And you might THINK you can "ignore with impunity" but the fact is, you can't, when it comes to this. There is most certainly punitive punishment for driving without a licence, and if you ignore that, you'll be sitting in prison.
this is unequivocal proof of shit. the states didn't create we the people either. we the people created the states. there is no power of a state to require a drivers license or insurance. If you have that constitutional proof, please provide it. And the ONLY reason there is punitive punishment for unconstitutional laws is idiot statists like you allow it to happen. proof that you don't care about constitutional limits.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
this is unequivocal proof of shit. the states didn't create we the people either. we the people created the states. there is no power of a state to require a drivers license or insurance. If you have that constitutional proof, please provide it. And the ONLY reason there is punitive punishment for unconstitutional laws is idiot statists like you allow it to happen. proof that you don't care about constitutional limits.
What the fuck, moron... I posted the relevant part of the Constitution! I tell ya what, you little fucked up idiot, go out there and violate the goddamn law and see what happens to your stupid ass? You're like the hard head little idiot who didn't believe his threats to the life of the president on this forum was a serious thing, he found out how fucking wrong he was about that.
The Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of the federal government in Art 1 Sec 8, and it lays out the specific things a state can NOT do, in Art 1 Sec 10, and the 10th Amendment states that what isn't enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8, or prohibited in Art 1 Sec 10, is reserved to the people. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say, we must defer to SmarterThanYou for what the Constitution means!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I asked you to show me PROOF!!. you didn't do that, you only posted the 10th Amendment which denies EXTRA powers to the feds. dont sit there and tell us you know the constitution because it's obvious you don't.What the fuck, moron... I posted the relevant part of the Constitution! I tell ya what, you little fucked up idiot, go out there and violate the goddamn law and see what happens to your stupid ass? You're like the hard head little idiot who didn't believe his threats to the life of the president on this forum was a serious thing, he found out how fucking wrong he was about that.
If you think that because there are only 3 things in the federal constitution that tells the state it cannot do something, means that the sate can then do everything else, you're a certified retard.The Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of the federal government in Art 1 Sec 8, and it lays out the specific things a state can NOT do, in Art 1 Sec 10, and the 10th Amendment states that what isn't enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8, or prohibited in Art 1 Sec 10, is reserved to the people. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say, we must defer to SmarterThanYou for what the Constitution means!
why do we have state constitutions then, moron? and see what happens to my stupid ass? that's the fucked up statist attitude of republicans you're exhibiting. one that has ZERO beliefs in freedom, only privileges. go back and get an education, a real one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I asked you to show me PROOF!!. you didn't do that, you only posted the 10th Amendment which denies EXTRA powers to the feds. dont sit there and tell us you know the constitution because it's obvious you don't.
I obviously know more than you, but all you need to do to catch up is READ the fucking Constitution! The 10th Amendment doesn't "deny extra powers" to the feds, it outlines how states retain authority, along with the people, over the federal government. A1 S8 enumerates the specific 'powers' given to federal government, A1 S10 outlines the specific restrictions on states, and the 10th stipulates if it's not covered by the two, the power is reserved to the people and the states. Drivers licenses falls in that category, it is authorized under the Constitution, and perfectly Constitutional.
If you think that because there are only 3 things in the federal constitution that tells the state it cannot do something, means that the sate can then do everything else, you're a certified retard.
But that isn't what I stated. A1 S10 outlines what a state can NOT do, just as A1 S8 outlines what the feds CAN do. Everything else is left to the states and people to decide.
why do we have state constitutions then, moron? and see what happens to my stupid ass? that's the fucked up statist attitude of republicans you're exhibiting. one that has ZERO beliefs in freedom, only privileges. go back and get an education, a real one.
Well we have state constitutions the same reason we have a federal one. I don't understand why you think my argument would render useless, a state constitution? If a state isn't violating A1 S10, and the people vote for it, they can pretty much make it the law. I don't know where you get that I am a "statist" or not educated, it seems that YOU are the idiot who doesn't comprehend what the Constitution states.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, you dont know more than I do, obviously. In fact, I'd say you're pretty ignorant of most of it if you believe that the 10th says the states can require drivers licenses without even considering the state constitutional.limits.I obviously know more than you, but all you need to do to catch up is READ the fucking Constitution! The 10th Amendment doesn't "deny extra powers" to the feds, it outlines how states retain authority, along with the people, over the federal government. A1 S8 enumerates the specific 'powers' given to federal government, A1 S10 outlines the specific restrictions on states, and the 10th stipulates if it's not covered by the two, the power is reserved to the people and the states. Drivers licenses falls in that category, it is authorized under the Constitution, and perfectly Constitutional.
the state constitutions limit the states, therefore the state cant deny a right of the people, in whole or in part, and it doesnt allow it to happen according to majority vote. If you knew the constitutional concept, you'd know I am right.dixie said:But that isn't what I stated. A1 S10 outlines what a state can NOT do, just as A1 S8 outlines what the feds CAN do. Everything else is left to the states and people to decide.
Well we have state constitutions the same reason we have a federal one. I don't understand why you think my argument would render useless, a state constitution? If a state isn't violating A1 S10, and the people vote for it, they can pretty much make it the law. I don't know where you get that I am a "statist" or not educated, it seems that YOU are the idiot who doesn't comprehend what the Constitution states.