Amendment 13 And A Military Draft

SmarterthanYou said:
and they have to do that within the powers authorized them by the constitution. not carte blanche because you believe it to be so.
Click to expand...

They're authorized to provide for defense...period. The Constitution doesn't say jack shit about providing for defense unless people just don't want to go along with it.
 
Guille said:
They're authorized to provide for defense...period. The Constitution doesn't say jack shit about providing for defense unless people just don't want to go along with it.
Click to expand...

you really don't understand limiting via the constitution, do you? by your reasoning, general welfare means the feds can provide new cars to high school graduates.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you really don't understand limiting via the constitution, do you? by your reasoning, general welfare means the feds can provide new cars to high school graduates.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't but I understand your need to transfer here, you are losing after all.

The feds have to provide for defense. If they don't have enough volunteers they still need to have more soldiers. How do they do that?
 
Guille said:
No it doesn't but I understand your need to transfer here, you are losing after all.
Click to expand...
how can i be losing when i've addressed all your issues?

The feds have to provide for defense. If they don't have enough volunteers they still need to have more soldiers. How do they do that?[/QUOTE]
Guille said:
by your logic, it gives the feds the authority to confiscate all weapons if it's deemed a threat to national security. does the 2nd allow for that?
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how can i be losing when i've addressed all your issues?
Click to expand...


Just saying you don't like what the Constitution says is not actually a refutation. Your argument was that the feds are limited. I agree the Constitution limits what the feds can do, or is supposed to, but they aren't limited when it comes to exercising legitimate powers. This includes providing for defense whether you like it or not.
 
Guille said:
Just saying you don't like what the Constitution says is not actually a refutation. Your argument was that the feds are limited. I agree the Constitution limits what the feds can do, or is supposed to, but they aren't limited when it comes to exercising legitimate powers. This includes providing for defense whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

ok, so they are NOT limited when it comes to exercising legitimate powers........where does the constitution specify those?
 
Guille said:
How about some logic...assuming your brain won't explode.

Simple question: Does the Constitution allow the federal government to provide for the national defense? This is a yes or no question.
Click to expand...

Whats ammater asshole, ya fishin for copout carp?
 
Guille said:
What are they allowed? The Constitution doesn't mention any limits, it just says provide for defense. And that answers your question.
Click to expand...

"To provide" means to supply. They can only supply what they have to supply. Volunteers would never be a problem if the reason is worthy.

Explain the 13th amendment if you can commie.
 
Guille said:
What are they allowed? The Constitution doesn't mention any limits, it just says provide for defense. And that answers your question.
Click to expand...

But the Constitution does mention limits asshole, read the 13th amendment.
 
As usual, Robo is a fucking idiot and 2A PUSSY has his head up his rectum.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Read it and weep, motherfuckers.
 
domer76 said:
As usual, Robo is a fucking idiot and 2A PUSSY has his head up his rectum.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Read it and weep, motherfuckers.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say the people OWE anything to the State asshole? The State only serves as authorized/allowed by the people. Do you know who the BOSS here really is commie asshole? Judges and Courts can also be extinguished for bad behavior and fucking over the folks moron. King George learned that lesson.
 
Robo said:
Why am I wrong?
Click to expand...

A better question would be; when are you right?

BUT; the fact that neither of us lived through WWI, II or the Korean conflict, it is hard for us to comprehend a world where our liberty and democratic ideology are threatened with extinction and the need to defend it.

You don't like a draft? Fine; don't serve and spend a year in prison.
 
Guille said:
Pick up a copy, close your eyes and throw a dart at it. The whole document does.
Click to expand...

you should work on your reading comprehension. From the time of the convention to ratification, EVERY representative and commentator specifically noted in almost EVERY article and speech that the powers of the federal government were FEW and LIMITED. That is what was ratified. so instead of intimating that you have some special education on how the constitution gives the feds these all purpose powers, step up and show us the super secret document you have that james madison says HA HA, I FUCKED YOU
 
domer76 said:
As usual, Robo is a fucking idiot and 2A PUSSY has his head up his rectum.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

Read it and weep, motherfuckers.
Click to expand...

suck the government cock, you retarded fuckhead. you're basing your entire shit filled premise on a totalitarian court with a decisions handed down over 100 years AFTER the constitution strictly limited the federal power.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
suck the government cock, you retarded fuckhead. you're basing your entire shit filled premise on a totalitarian court with a decisions handed down over 100 years AFTER the constitution strictly limited the federal power.
Click to expand...

The court was totalitarian in 1916? FDR wouldn't be making appointments for about twenty more years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top