rushmc 23 #51 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteSince the powers of Congress are enumerated, not implied, which is as the framers intended, where, in that which you posted, is the power to take tax monies and buy and control a private business? The founding fathers did a poor job of enumeration of Congress' powers if that is what was intended.Yes, it would have been a poor job it this is what they intended Do you think GM and Chrysler might have potential customers in more than one state? Sorry, what the hell does this mean?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #52 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut, under the Constitution, Congress does NOT have the power to pass ANY legislation. Only the legislation they are specifically not allowed to pass according to the Constitution. ALL other legislation is certainly within the description of things Congress is allowed to pass. In fact, that's how it's supposed to work. Certainly not the Judiciary and not the Executive either (although there are some ways around this). That's a huge side issue that deserves it's own thread. I strongly disagree with your statement that ALL legislation is within the scope of congressional purview. I'm pretty sure that the Constitution enumerates specific areas of responsibility and action for Congress, and reserves the rest (really the vast majority) of things, those "not delegated to the United States by the Consitution", for "the States respectively, or the people."-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #53 March 31, 2009 QuoteNow imagine how exhausted the Democrats were with hearing CDIF for 8 fucking years. It's been just over 8 weeks for the latest reversal! 1) I'm not a Republican. 2) I never said "CDIF" 3) WTF does CDIF mean? Is there some kind of political fingerpointing jargon manual that I can buy at Amazon to keep up with this stuff?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #54 March 31, 2009 QuoteI think I mentioned that the Constitution prohibits them from legislating certain things. That which is not prohibited, is allowed. We're reading very different documents, then. When I read this bit: "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." especially when viewed in conjunction with this bit: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #55 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteSince the powers of Congress are enumerated, not implied, which is as the framers intended, where, in that which you posted, is the power to take tax monies and buy and control a private business? The founding fathers did a poor job of enumeration of Congress' powers if that is what was intended. I disagree. I think they actually did a pretty good job of enumerating the powers they intended the government to have, and laying out that they didn't want it to have any more powers than that. It's only in the 20th century that we really strayed way off the mark on that, starting in about the mid 30's. I honestly do feel we've strayed far from their intentions, or from a reasonable system of government that keeps us free and safe, but largely leaves us unmolested. Government power today is largely a device by which the majority imposes it's will on the minority, which is exactly what the founding father's sought to avoid.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteObama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? My money is on the oil companies. I'll take healthcare. Want to make a friendly wager on it?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #57 March 31, 2009 QuoteSorry, what the hell does this mean? this pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced : is this your bag? | he soon knew that this was not the place for him. • used to introduce someone or something : this is the captain speaking | listen to this. • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”) : this is different from that. referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : the company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing this about. adjective (pl. these) used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced : don't listen to this guy | these croissants are delicious. • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”) : this one or that one? referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : there was a court case resulting from this incident. sed with periods of time related to the present : I thought you were busy all this week | how are you this morning? • referring to a period of time that has just passed : I haven't left my bed these three days. informal used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing previously unspecified : I turned around, and there was this big mummy standing next to us! | I've got this problem and I need help. adverb [as submodifier] to the degree or extent indicated: they can't handle a job this big | he's not used to this much attention. PHRASES this and that (or this, that, and the other) informal various unspecified things : they stayed up chatting about this and that. this here informal used to draw attention emphatically to someone or something : I've slept in this here bed for forty years. ORIGIN Old English, neuter of thes; related to THAT and THE. Now, if you would be so kind as to translate the following sentence to English: Yes, it would have been a poor job it this is what they intendedMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #58 March 31, 2009 Perhaps you should examine more closely the Law of Nations clause in Section 8 of Article I.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #59 March 31, 2009 QuoteIt says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power. Tom if that were the case (and you're lucky as hell it's not) then virtually every bill would require a Constitutional Amendment due to parsing. The very concept of "that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed" is almost unique to the US. It is, in fact, what allows people (and Congress) to do "new" things.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #60 March 31, 2009 Quote I'll take healthcare. Want to make a friendly wager on it? I'll take that wager. It'll be easier to whip up the American idol masses into a frenzy over the evil oil companies than healthcare. Especially if oil/gas prices start rising again. I bet Hugo Chavez is grinning ear to ear.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #61 March 31, 2009 QuoteI'll take healthcare. Want to make a friendly wager on it? Allright Tom! Healthcare for $500.00 (Joke in Jeoprady Style Voice!) I know, i know, lame attempt at some humour.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #62 March 31, 2009 QuoteWow. You now think UN resolutions carry the force of law within the US, and provide justification for a president to take action? I'll remember you said that. Heck BillVon, he don't know exactly what he said himself. I'll remember he said that as well. rushmc: He did not have Congressional approval from Congress prior to the first strike. I don't care how bad you want it to be that way, but it wasn't. You strike me as a "Left Wing Radical" You really need to watch "Thank You America" where Will Farrell portrays GW as the lovable, idiotacal bafoon he really is. He will go down in history as being the most inept President ever.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 March 31, 2009 QuoteIt would seem to me that declaring war on a third world country without UN sanction Wrong - the UN has nothing to do with it. Quote or Congressional approval Wrong again - Congress authorized use of force.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteNow imagine how exhausted the Democrats were with hearing CDIF for 8 fucking years. It's been just over 8 weeks for the latest reversal! 1) I'm not a Republican. 2) I never said "CDIF" 3) WTF does CDIF mean? Is there some kind of political fingerpointing jargon manual that I can buy at Amazon to keep up with this stuff? CDIF is "Clinton Did It First", usually in response to some sort of BDS issue. Oddly enough, it never seems to have been a problem when CDIF, only when Bush or the Republicans do it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 March 31, 2009 CDIF Clinton did it first"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 March 31, 2009 Quote Quote Wow. You now think UN resolutions carry the force of law within the US, and provide justification for a president to take action? I'll remember you said that. Heck BillVon, he don't know exactly what he said himself. I'll remember he said that as well. rushmc: He did not have Congressional approval from Congress prior to the first strike. I don't care how bad you want it to be that way, but it wasn't. You strike me as a "Left Wing Radical" You really need to watch "Thank You America" where Will Farrell portrays GW as the lovable, idiotacal bafoon he really is. He will go down in history as being the most inept President ever. He had congression blessings. he did not have a war declaration. So , the cowards in Congress said go get him. We want him (SH) out too but, we are too fucking chicken to do it as the Constititution says. AS the most inept? Not even close "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 March 31, 2009 Quoterushmc: He did not have Congressional approval from Congress prior to the first strike. Perhaps you can provide the bill that Congress passed that gave Clinton the approval to bomb those aspirin factories in the Sudan? Read the War Powers Act - you're embarassing yourself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #68 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteObama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? My money is on the oil companies. The last I checked, the oil companies have more than enough cash, so I don't see how the government could wield any power over them. The only reason the government has been able to ask the automakers to do anything is because they're in desperate need of cash. Also, the car companies aren't federalized. They are still controlled by their boards. Those boards could have chose to say they wouldn't comply with the President's requests and rejected the money. Similarly, if you're running a bank and a man comes to you and asks for $10,000 to help shore up his failing business, are you just going to give it to him or are you going to look at his business model and possibly make some demands to ensure that his business will remain viable and capable of paying back the loan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #69 March 31, 2009 Quote Obama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? Who'd-a-thunk it?!?!? Republicans, researching the Constitution with regard to executive powers! Change isn't on the way....IT'S HERE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #70 March 31, 2009 QuoteOne of the major stumbling blocks to new car sales right now is people are afraid that if the company goes out of business, they'll be stuck with nowhere to turn to for service guarantees. Him saying that they'll be backed by the government makes at least a bit of sense if we, as a country, want to get our own product moving again. Imagine if those morons 'had not' have recalled all the EV1's and did continue along that path. They would be so wealthy right now but instead they invested in gas guzzlers. QuoteOne of the major stumbling blocks to new car sales right now is people are afraid that if the company goes out of business, they'll be stuck with nowhere to turn to for service guarantees. Him saying that they'll be backed by the government makes at least a bit of sense if we, as a country, want to get our own product moving again. Bring on the Chevy Volt! Maybe a decade and a half after the ev1 was designed they might get to make some money off thier R & D. Fuck the oil companies. They can suck shit. It will only take another generation for them to lose their hold on our planet. GM are idiots for not anticipating their current situation, if they pull through and get these thingson the market and push the plug in factor, then they might just pull through. Toyota and Honda are likely to put plugs on their hybrids too though, but we need someone to do it first so we can breath easy. The volt will probably be the first plug in on the mainstream market if they release it when they said they would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #71 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt says to me the exact inverse of your statement. What it says to me is "that which is not allowed is prohibited." If there is no specific allowance in the Constitution for something, then the government does not possess that power. Tom if that were the case (and you're lucky as hell it's not) then virtually every bill would require a Constitutional Amendment due to parsing. The very concept of "that which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed" is almost unique to the US. It is, in fact, what allows people (and Congress) to do "new" things. I don't think that Congress ought to be doing "new" things. Nor do I believe those things are within the scope of the Constitution as written, or as originally intended, or as interpreted for the majority of the nation's history.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #72 March 31, 2009 QuoteI don't think that Congress ought to be doing "new" things. Hence our divided Country.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #73 March 31, 2009 QuoteI'll take that wager. It'll be easier to whip up the American idol masses into a frenzy over the evil oil companies than healthcare. Especially if oil/gas prices start rising again. I think if gas hits $4 a gallon again, nationalization of the oil industry is almost a sure thing. But I think that we're going to see a big movement toward national healthcare well before that. It's always easy to whip up a frenzy against anyone who takes home more money than you do, and for the vast majority of americans, that means their family doctor. My guess is that healthcare precedes oil on the road to hell.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #74 March 31, 2009 QuoteMy guess is that healthcare precedes oil on the road to hell. tough call - both are ripe for emotional manipulation, and then, when the mob gets into an non-reasoning emotional frenzy, I could see the two tied together and played as a package. The oil companies need to pay for health care - but only in a GREEN fashion ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #75 March 31, 2009 I see you didn't follow the suggestion of examining the Law of Nations clause to see how much more power the Founding Fathers entrusted to Congress than the libertarian tin-foil hatters acknowledge.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
