Constitutional Justification of the federal minimum wage rate.

I get that people need to believe that the supreme court rules over us, that they decide what the constitution means........it makes it easier for those feebleminded individuals just do what they're told and push their parties to nominate political hacks to the benches to decide how they want it...........it's why we're pretty much dead as a free nation and have been for some time.

the thing that people can't seem to fathom, most likely because it would turn their foundation of reality in to quicksand, is what happens if you end up in court and believe you're not guilty of whatever it is that the government charged you with, but those on the court decide to interpret the law and/or constitution against you? you have to accept it because you've spent your entire lifetime letting government define the limits of their own power..........is that freedom when you can't completely trust the constitution and it's limits on the government? no, it just makes you a slave
SmarterthanYou, apparently similar to President Donald Trump, will support the constitution of the United States to the best of your abilities, except when your opinions differ from the U.S. Supreme Court or the legal determinations and opinions of our U.S. Congress, or any other state’s governor or officials.

When our current president took his oath of office, he must have whispered his exceptions to the oath. All anyone heard were his words, “… that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Respectfully, Supposn
 
SmarterthanYou, apparently similar to President Donald Trump, will support the constitution of the United States to the best of your abilities, except when your opinions differ from the U.S. Supreme Court or the legal determinations and opinions of our U.S. Congress, or any other state’s governor or officials.

When our current president took his oath of office, he must have whispered his exceptions to the oath. All anyone heard were his words, “… that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Respectfully, Supposn

the oath is to the constitution, not the supreme court. it's simple.
 
the oath is to the constitution, not the supreme court. it's simple.
AssHatZombie, no its not entirely that simple.
The U.S. Constitution has a preamble, 7 articles, and 27 amendments. Each of the Constitutions 7 articles have several sections. You have indicated you have less regard for article one, section 8, and extremely little regard for article three, but I cannot guess the remainder of your priorities? Which of the U.S. Constitution’s articles and their sections are more worthy of your support?
Do you share the same priorities as those President Donald Trump chooses not to support to the best of his abilities?
You’ve heard or read the presidential oath, the words are “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? There’s no mention of parsing the constitution between those portions the president believes to be more or less worthy of the president’s protection, and defense. Respectfully, Supposn
 
AssHatZombie, no its not entirely that simple.
The U.S. Constitution has a preamble, 7 articles, and 27 amendments. Each of the Constitutions 7 articles have several sections. You have indicated you have less regard for article one, section 8, and extremely little regard for article three, but I cannot guess the remainder of your priorities? Which of the U.S. Constitution’s articles and their sections are more worthy of your support?
Do you share the same priorities as those President Donald Trump chooses not to support to the best of his abilities?
You’ve heard or read he presidential oath, the words are “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? There’s no mention of parsing the constitution between those portions the president believes to be more or less worthy of the president’s protection, and defense. Respectfully, Supposn

should people be administered vaccines against their will?
 
Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government

While the Constitution does limit the powers of the central government, the purpose of the convention in creating that document were just the opposite. The Articles created a central government too weak to govern properly (according to the Federalists) and the convention was called to revise the Articles (not create a new Constitution).

The purpose of the new Constitution was to create a more powerful central government with the powers to tax the citizens directly, raise and support a military, regulate commerce between the states, and coin money.

The interstate commerce power was to regulate trade between states, not anything that "affects" commerce as interpreted today.
 
While the Constitution does limit the powers of the central government, the purpose of the convention in creating that document were just the opposite. The Articles created a central government too weak to govern properly (according to the Federalists) and the convention was called to revise the Articles (not create a new Constitution).

The purpose of the new Constitution was to create a more powerful central government with the powers to tax the citizens directly, raise and support a military, regulate commerce between the states, and coin money.

The interstate commerce power was to regulate trade between states, not anything that "affects" commerce as interpreted today.

you're delusional.
 
Back
Top