Is there any part of the Constitution Republicans aren't against?

Republicans are philosophically opposed to the preamble.

Especially justice and domestic tranquility and general welfare and blessings of liberty and we the people and do ordain and establish this constitution and United States and more perfect untluon and providing for the common defense and promoting anything g
 
Micawber said:
Republicans are philosophically opposed to the preamble.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It describes why the States are forming a federal government. Nothing in the preamble is a power or authority of the federal government.
Micawber said:
Especially justice and domestic tranquility and general welfare and blessings of liberty and we the people and do ordain and establish this constitution and United States and more perfect untluon and providing for the common defense and promoting anything
Click to expand...
Seeking justice (especially on issues between the States) is one purpose of the federal government. See Article III as well.

Domestic tranquilty has been wildly successful. We have had an attack on our own shores on only three occasions since the Constitution was ordained to power.

General welfare does not mean the welfare system,and it is not a power or authority given to the federal government. It is simply a declaration that the States do this to benefit each other, and a directive to the new federal government that this is it's purpose as well, using the powers enumerated for it.

The federal government provides for a common defense for the States. That is one of its jobs.

Providing for the common defense, establishing procedures for issues between the States, and certain other powers of the federal government does provide for the general welfare of the States, and of their people. The 'welfare clause'. is not a power or authority, but the reasoning why the powers and authorities given to the new government are given.
 
archives said:
Oh, so I guess that means the 3rd Amendment still applies now
Click to expand...

Yes, the 3rd still applies today, but it is one of the few remaining rights which has never been applied to the states.

There was a case a few years ago in which a state brought in troops to put down a prison riot and quartered those troops in the barracks of the prison guards and the guards sued.
 
Micawber said:
Republicans are philosophically opposed to the preamble.

Especially justice and domestic tranquility and general welfare and blessings of liberty and we the people and do ordain and establish this constitution and United States and more perfect untluon and providing for the common defense and promoting anything g
Click to expand...

Democrats incorrectly believe establish justice means social justice and general welfare means social welfare.
 
Flash said:
Yes, the 3rd still applies today, but it is one of the few remaining rights which has never been applied to the states.

There was a case a few years ago in which a state brought in troops to put down a prison riot and quartered those troops in the barracks of the prison guards and the guards sued.
Click to expand...


There are lots of laws on the books today that aren't applied. That doesn't mean they aren't applicable.
 
archives said:
Incorrect, you, and your man "c" wanted to know where the likes of food stamps was listed in the Constitution
Click to expand...
Yes, we would like to know... Congress does not have the power to implement a food stamps program. Show me where this power is enumerated in the Constitution?

archives said:
Again, show me the exact words, show me where it says in the Constitution the Gov't can start an Air Force.
Click to expand...
You were already shown this. Into The Night was kind enough to specify the Article it is in (Article 1). I will now be kind enough to even specify the Section it is in (Section 8). I hope you can now figure it out for yourself... ;)

archives said:
None of those are specified under the Articles he listed, rather implied, big difference, you Trumpkins are requesting one thing and then when delivered attempting to save face while answering your own question in the process
Click to expand...
No, they are specified.
 
StoneByStone said:
Trump can call parts of muh constitution "phony" and nobody cares. Can you imagine what kind of scandal it would have been if Obama said that?
Click to expand...
Contextomy Fallacy. He did not call the Emoluments Clause itself phony. He was calling out the people who were being phony in the way that they were attempting to apply that clause.
 
gfm7175 said:
Contextomy Fallacy. He did not call the Emoluments Clause itself phony. He was calling out the people who were being phony in the way that they were attempting to apply that clause.
Click to expand...

No, he said "this phony emoluments clause."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Trump actually read muh constitution and decided he didn't agree with parts of it. I'm sure he hasn't read it at all and couldn't care less what it says. But can you imagine the reaction Republicans would give if a Democrat said something like that? Good thing Trump has that Magic R.
 
StoneByStone said:
No, he said "this phony emoluments clause."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Trump actually read muh constitution and decided he didn't agree with parts of it. I'm sure he hasn't read it at all and couldn't care less what it says. But can you imagine the reaction Republicans would give if a Democrat said something like that? Good thing Trump has that Magic R.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true n-l'ing Obama supporter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top