Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Information and Research > Historical Discourse
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Historical Discourse A discussion forum dedicated to history.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: AKRON
Posts: 4,679

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

And, let me know what you think about the eminent domain ruling after you have had time to check it out.
Reply With Quote
  #182 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
htperr6565's Avatar
Secretary of Defense
The voice of doom

 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: The Glorious Southlands of the United States
Posts: 3,457

United_States     Georgia_state

Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
Yeah, who cares what Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and all the others had to say. Let's just dismiss what all these great believers in individual liberty had to say and accept Hamliton's view, the guy who wanted the president to be a lifetime appointment.

Thanks for proving my point. You do not believe in individual liberty.
you are being completely unreasonable here. too bad you weren't born 200 years ago.

then you would live in a society where your vague principles could at least be entertained.

you are all rhetoric, zero substance. TSG is murdering you with substance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #183 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: AKRON
Posts: 4,679

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by htperr6565 View Post
you are being completely unreasonable here. too bad you weren't born 200 years ago.

then you would live in a society where your vague principles could at least be entertained.

you are all rhetoric, zero substance. TSG is murdering you with substance.
Go away, no one cares what you think or what you have to say.
Reply With Quote
  #184 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
htperr6565's Avatar
Secretary of Defense
The voice of doom

 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: The Glorious Southlands of the United States
Posts: 3,457

United_States     Georgia_state

Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
Go away, no one cares what you think or what you have to say.
pal, give it up. you are constantly cornered on this site, (mainly because you offer stubborn rhetoric with the inability to explain it in substance)

so why the hell would i presume to think you speak for anyone other than yourself (the latter which you are incapable of half the time anyway)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: US, California - federalist
Posts: 5,337

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus View Post
Norrin, I left this quote whole to show you what I mean by your difficulty thinking rationally. You don't seem to see that you wanted the court to behave, by overturning the laws against medical marijuana, EXACTLY the way Black was saying the court should not do.

The question, "if drugs like Oxycontin can be prescribed, why can't marijuana?" is a good one to ask of Congress. As far as policy goes and what the law should be, of course I agree with you here -- you know that already. But the fact remains, as wrongheaded as the war on drugs is, it's within the powers of the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. And so is the authority to make stupid choices like that one.

The Court can't strike down a law because it's a bad law. It can only do so because the law violates the Constitution, and not all bad laws do.
I disagree that the power to Prohibit Commerce among the several States is delegated to the general government of the Union, since the repeal of that amendment.

The general government of the Union is not possessed of inherent police powers (outside of DC and other federal property); but, only those specifically delegated.
Reply With Quote
  #186 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: AKRON
Posts: 4,679

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by htperr6565 View Post
pal, give it up. you are constantly cornered on this site, (mainly because you offer stubborn rhetoric with the inability to explain it in substance)

so why the hell would i presume to think you speak for anyone other than yourself (the latter which you are incapable of half the time anyway)
You are little more than a cheerleader for the Democratic party and I have ZERO respect for you, or anything you have to say, so please go away.
Reply With Quote
  #187 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
htperr6565's Avatar
Secretary of Defense
The voice of doom

 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: The Glorious Southlands of the United States
Posts: 3,457

United_States     Georgia_state

Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
You are little more than a cheerleader for the Democratic party and I have ZERO respect for you, or anything you have to say, so please go away.
pal, you are little more than an idealist who forgot that reality exists.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,221

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
Where does the constitution give the government the power to declare drugs illegal?
Regulation of commerce clause, of course.

Quote:
If alcohol prohibition needed an amendment, shouldn't the war on drugs require an amendment as well?
The underlying question is whether alcohol prohibition actually needed an amendment. As the prohibitionists sought and acquired one, the question was never tested in court.
Reply With Quote
  #189 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Chocobot's Avatar
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,049

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
You are little more than a cheerleader for the Democratic party and I have ZERO respect for you, or anything you have to say, so please go away.
Jeez, first you dont want to discuss with TS gracchus, now hyper.

would you like to vet us all?
__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?
Reply With Quote
  #190 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: US, California - federalist
Posts: 5,337

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus View Post
Regulation of commerce clause, of course.

The underlying question is whether alcohol prohibition actually needed an amendment. As the prohibitionists sought and acquired one, the question was never tested in court.
Historical precedent should have been binding precedent. Regulation of commerce involves some form of taxation to defray that public expense.

The delegated power to Prohibit forms of commerce among the several States was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #191 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
Pogo's Avatar
Feel the compassion?
Want some gov't pie?

 
Member Since: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,788

Earth     United_States

Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
I ANSWERED NO. As you would already know if you had read enough of my posts at this forum.
I'll try again. How would you propose to protect the poor from the rich?
__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson
Reply With Quote
  #192 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2009
daddio's Avatar
Vice President

 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Location: the south
Posts: 8,837

United_States     Virginia

Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo View Post
I'll try again. How would you propose to protect the poor from the rich?

protect them from what exactly ?
__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #193 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: AKRON
Posts: 4,679

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo View Post
I'll try again. How would you propose to protect the poor from the rich?
Following the constitution would be a good start. What we are doing now is making slaves out of the poor. They used to live on farms and eek out a living. Bit now that is almost impossible because of what our government has done to our society. Because of welfare, ADC, all government assistance, the poor were the largest growing segment of the population for decades. Because of government policies, like free trade, we have lost millions of decent paying, middle class jobs. Because of government policies, we had 2 generations grow up without fathers, mostly because of government assistance to single mothers. Because of government policies, we had 7.3 million people in jail, prison, on probation or on parole in 2007. Close to half of these people were for drug offenses. Over half of all federal prisoners are there for drug offenses. This builds resentment for the law, which is one of the worst things for a nation.

Unemployment, welfare, ADC, subsidized housing, food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, all of these things are chains around our necks. We are becoming dependent on the government and eventually that power will be abused. It is only a matter of time. IT IS HUMAN NATURE.

Now, of course, things are so bad in this country they will be difficult to undue. Drastic changes are bad and we need to wean people slowly off of government assistance, cutting spending, which will cut waste, end the war on drugs and invest heavily in education and fix this country. Of course we would have to take education out of the hands of socialists before we could fix it. Black population growth exploded in the NINETIES......

Look at black population growth in the Nineties....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The black population of the United States grew almost three times as fast as the white populace in the decade of the 1990s, according to U.S. Census reports released Monday.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/08/1...ack/index.html

Now, the immigrant population is taking off. How does it make SENSE to ENCOURAGE the poorest Americans to increase their population? Please tell me how we are protecting them.

The red upper portion of the graph represents the difference between the number of 1970-stock Americans and the total population. The tens of millions of people represented by this block are the immigrants who have arrived, or are projected to arrive, since 1970, plus their descendents, minus deaths. They are projected to comprise 70% of all U.S. population growth between 1993 and 205033. http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html

What we are doing now is working great. We make it too enxpensive for people who can afford kids to have them and then steal their money and give it to poor people so they can have kids.

BRILLIANT!

Last edited by Norrin Radd; 07-15-2009 at 12:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #194 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2009
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: AKRON
Posts: 4,679

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

A few more stats.......

Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double
The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom

As a percentage of world inhabitants, the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

Using 2010 as the base reference, the big gainer in the population derby will be blacks or sub-Sahara Africans. This group will expand almost 133% to 2.7 billion by 2060. By the middle of this century blacks will represent 25.38% of world population, which is up dramatically from the 8.97% they recorded in 1950.


Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit?Black Population to Double | National Policy Institute

I also wanted to add that our Government's immigration policy has led to an explosion of population growth for POOR PEOPLE. This policy is like the Chewbacca defense, it doesn't make sense. Unless of course you want a large, poor population, that is easy to control. Then it makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #195 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2009
Chocobot's Avatar
Secretary of State

 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,049

   
Re: Constitutional Law: "To Provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
A few more stats.......

Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double
The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom

As a percentage of world inhabitants, the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

Using 2010 as the base reference, the big gainer in the population derby will be blacks or sub-Sahara Africans. This group will expand almost 133% to 2.7 billion by 2060. By the middle of this century blacks will represent 25.38% of world population, which is up dramatically from the 8.97% they recorded in 1950.


Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit?Black Population to Double | National Policy Institute

I also wanted to add that our Government's immigration policy has led to an explosion of population growth for POOR PEOPLE. This policy is like the Chewbacca defense, it doesn't make sense. Unless of course you want a large, poor population, that is easy to control. Then it makes sense.
Who is the 'you' here?

Lemme guess, the 'guv'mnt' right??
__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 U.S. Politics Online