Topic: If any of you have been paying attention

[nickpapageorgio81]

to the news, and listening to the propaganda garbage FoxNews, Msnbc and Cnn spews it is easy to see we are screwed.  We are screwed  because we are divided over red herring arguments that would not be taking place in the first place if the Constitution was adhered to.  Since we are screwed, we might as well have some laughs before we all die.  Since the District is mine I am starting a "Let's have a few laughs" thread. 

Let the goofiness commense....

http://www.catswhothrowupgrass.com/kill.php

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/dolphin_punch

http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/bear_balls       

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/printers

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tyrannosaur_crack

[nickpapageorgio81]

http://www.womenwithmustaches.com/

[MIZtigersZOU]

You were SOOO close to not sounding crazy!

[nickpapageorgio81]

You were SOOO close to not sounding crazy!

Mizzou made a funny.... Come on Mizzou, more comedy!

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/customer_service

[mpalmer4]

to the news, and listening to the propaganda garbage FoxNews, Msnbc and Cnn spews it is easy to see we are screwed.  We are screwed  because we are divided over red herring arguments that would not be taking place in the first place if the Constitution was adhered to.  Since we are screwed, we might as well have some laughs before we all die.  Since the District is mine I am starting a "Let's have a few laughs" thread. 

Let the goofiness commense....

http://www.catswhothrowupgrass.com/kill.php

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/dolphin_punch

http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/bear_balls       

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/printers

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tyrannosaur_crack

Not everyone believes in being a constructionist........nor should they

[nickpapageorgio81]

Mpalmer we have gone over this already.  I educated you and left you with nothing to say.

http://www.big12fans.net/big12fanssmf/index.php/topic,9737.0.html

REMEMBER:  In number 45 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, the man often referred to as The Father of the Constitution, wrote:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED."   That means it is NOT open to interpretation.

[mpalmer4]

Mpalmer we have gone over this already.  I educated you and left you with nothing to say.

http://www.big12fans.net/big12fanssmf/index.php/topic,9737.0.html

REMEMBER:  In number 45 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, the man often referred to as The Father of the Constitution, wrote:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED."   That means it is NOT open to interpretation.

Even Thomas Jefferson did things that would've been considered unconstitutional. Heard of Alexander Hamilton?  

And also, why are there so many more loose constructionists than strict? Hm.

[nickpapageorgio81]

Even Thomas Jefferson did things that would've been considered unconstitutional. Heard of Alexander Hamilton?  

And also, why are there so many more loose constructionists than strict? Hm.

Give examples. aka Link.......?

What you are asking of us is to trade the genius of the founders and follow the greed of todays lawyers and bow to leftist professors that have agendas.  Yes, I have heard of Alexander Hamilton.  He wanted a big central government with a central bank....Those 2 things threaten the chains of restrictions on a government.  Jefferson wanted the opposite.  Tell me, in your opinion what did Jefferson do that was unconstitutional?

[mpalmer4]

Give examples. aka Link.......?

What you are asking of us is to trade the genius of the founders and follow the greed of todays lawyers and bow to leftist professors that have agendas.  Yes, I have heard of Alexander Hamilton.  He wanted a big central government with a central bank....Those 2 things threaten the chains of restrictions on a government.  Jefferson wanted the opposite.  Tell me, in your opinion what did Jefferson do that was unconstitutional?

Jefferson allowed Hamilton to expand the National Bank, which you continue to say is unconstitutional.

The constitution is a living, breathing document.  Many would agree with me. And not just "todays lawyers and leftist professors with agendas."  George W. Bush had no respect for the constitution, perhaps even less than Obama based on your standards.

[nickpapageorgio81]

The establishment of the bank also raised early questions of constitutionality in the new government. Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, argued that the Bank was an effective means to utilize the authorized powers of the government implied under the law of the Constitution. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson argued that the Bank violated traditional property laws and that its relevance to constitutionally authorized powers was weak. The decision ultimately fell to President George Washington.Knowing he was setting a precedent by everything he was doing in his capacity as President of the United States, George Washington was hesitant about signing the "bank bill" into law. Washington asked for a written opinion from all his cabinet members?most particularly from Hamilton. Attorney General Edmund Randolph from Virginia felt that the bill was unconstitutional. Jefferson, also from Virginia, agreed that Hamilton's proposal was against both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

[nickpapageorgio81]

 In addition,"...in a masterpiece of legal obfuscation, well calculated to confuse the president, he [Jefferson] asserted the bank bill violated the laws of mortmain, alienage, forfeiture and escheat, distribution and monopoly. Washington, overwhelmed by the arguments...send Hamilton copies of Randolf's and Jefferson's opinion...inviting Hamilton in effect to defend the bank if he could..."[5]Hamilton, who, unlike his fellow cabinet members, hailed from New York, quickly set about laying to rest the arguments of those who claimed incorporation of the bank unconstitutional. While Hamilton's rebuttals were many and varied, chief among them were these two:

[nickpapageorgio81]

What the government could do for a person (incorporate), it could not refuse to do for an "artificial person", a business. And the Bank of the United States, being privately owned and not a government agency, was a business. "Thus...unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations to thatof the United States, in relation to the objectsentrusted [sic] to the management of the government." Any government by its very nature was sovereign "and includes by forceof the terma right to attainment of the ends...which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution...[6]Jefferson, Madison, and the rest, Hamilton pointed out, had looked upon the creation of the Bank of the United States (and the excise tax that went with it) as an end rather than a means to an end.Still Washington hesitated, wondering if it might not be more prudent to merely wait, to do nothing, and allow the bill to become law without his signature.

[nickpapageorgio81]

  Ultimately, whether because of or in spite of the bill's opponents, on April 25, 1791, WASHINGTON signed the "bank bill" into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

You must not have known that Jefferson and Hamilton were fierce rivals over the banking issue.  I thought anyone who knows history knew that.  Jefferson was also against the Alien and Sedition Acts (Patriot Act of their times. See the world never really changes, only agendas do.) that Adams and Hamilton composed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH7mGt0VDE

[nickpapageorgio81]

I would say that Bush and Obama are one in the same with Obama being worse.  You do realise he extended the Patriot Act?  He. like Bush, has called for a "civilian national army."  To force peeps to buy a service or good is very much unconstitutional.  To tax or fine inaction is unconstitutional. 
Jefferson would agree that the Constitution is a living document, but his reasons differ from yours.  Jefferson was a proponent for permanent revolution.  The Constitution is a living document in SOME parts.  However duties, responsibilities and power delegated to the 3 branches are NOT open to interpretation or EVER intended to change.  You need to learn to comprehend.  The founders knew what could happen so they created the firewall that is the Constitution and the checks and balances.   I am quite sure the founders never intended to have the Amendments or our bill of rights interpreted.  They are quoted as saying such.  Take away my 2nd amend and I will take away your 1st amend. 

[mpalmer4]

I would say that Bush and Obama are one in the same with Obama being worse.  You do realise he extended the Patriot Act?  He. like Bush, has called for a "civilian national army."  To force peeps to buy a service or good is very much unconstitutional.  To tax or fine inaction is unconstitutional. 
Jefferson would agree that the Constitution is a living document, but his reasons differ from yours.  Jefferson was a proponent for permanent revolution.  The Constitution is a living document in SOME parts.  However duties, responsibilities and power delegated to the 3 branches are NOT open to interpretation or EVER intended to change.  You need to learn to comprehend.  The founders knew what could happen so they created the firewall that is the Constitution and the checks and balances.   I am quite sure the founders never intended to have the Amendments or our bill of rights interpreted.  They are quoted as saying such.  Take away my 2nd amend and I will take away your 1st amend. 

You can't have it both ways dude.

Who checks the Judicial branch? 

Great system they created right?

Obama extended PARTS of the Patriot Act, mostly to avoid criticism that he is weak against terrorism. It was a political move, not a philosophical one.

  Ultimately, whether because of or in spite of the bill's opponents, on April 25, 1791, WASHINGTON signed the "bank bill" into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

You must not have known that Jefferson and Hamilton were fierce rivals over the banking issue.  I thought anyone who knows history knew that.  Jefferson was also against the Alien and Sedition Acts (Patriot Act of their times. See the world never really changes, only agendas do.) that Adams and Hamilton composed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH7mGt0VDE

I am well aware that Jefferson and Hamilton were opponents..........until Jefferson became President. He then became quite a bit more relaxed because he realized that being a strict constructionist just does not work..........WHICH IS WHY NO ONE OPERATES THAT WAY.  Eisenhower is the only President in the last 100 years that was even close to being a strict constructionist. 

"If it doesn't say we can, we can't."--an entirely stupid concept because the founders had no way in hell of knowing what the world would evolve into.  Technology itself simply doesn't allow us to sit around and act like its 1787 anymore.

And trying to say everything should then be left up to the states is ludicrous.........we formed "a more perfect union" remember?

[nickpapageorgio81]

It doesn't  say they can tax me for inaction, so I  will keep it that way.  If that were to change the government could then tax and fine me for not buying GM or Chrysler.  Sure Jefferson got all "radical" and did the Louisiana Purchase, but you told me Jefferson helped Hamilton create and expand a central bank which is so wrong I am wondering why you are trying to save face.  Jefferson was more an originalist, always looking to adhere to the original meaning.  He stepped out of his responsibility to Purchase Louisiana, and I think it was a good decision.  Just like I agree with Lincoln going to war to free the slaves and the Federal Governments reaction to some states for civil and women's rights.  When the Federal Government steps in to support LIBERTY I have no issue with them stepping all over "states rights" in those instances.  States are to follow the Constitution too.  However the Federal Government is in the wrong MOST of the time. 

[mpalmer4]

It doesn't  say they can tax me for inaction, so I  will keep it that way.  If that were to change the government could then tax and fine me for not buying GM or Chrysler.  Sure Jefferson got all "radical" and did the Louisiana Purchase, but you told me Jefferson helped Hamilton create and expand a central bank which is so wrong I am wondering why you are trying to save face.  Jefferson was more an originalist, always looking to adhere to the original meaning.  He stepped out of his responsibility to Purchase Louisiana, and I think it was a good decision.  Just like I agree with Lincoln going to war to free the slaves and the Federal Governments reaction to some states for civil and women's rights.  When the Federal Government steps in to support LIBERTY I have no issue with them stepping all over "states rights" in those instances.  States are to follow the Constitution too.  However the Federal Government is in the wrong MOST of the time. 

You refuse to acknowledge that these are philosophical differences and just continue to insist that you are right, which is where the problems arise.  That's the point of politics.....

[nickpapageorgio81]

The Federal Government telling States that in order to get highway money the States need to raise the legal age to consume alcohol from 18 to 21 is not a "perfect" union.  What you want is judicial activism  Something the majority do not want so instead of coming out and saying it you attack constructionism when it is really originalism.  
Truman hated Eisenhower for his fight against the Commies, and for not denouncing McCarthy .  Perhaps a moron like you can call Eisenhower stupid because he doesn't fit your agenda.  This is me assuming you know what you are talking about, which you have proven you don't.  Anyone who believes that it's a good thing the 3 branches step outside their responsibility and usurp more power to themselves has to have their intelligence examined.   Especially when the responsibility and powes givenr is FEW and DEFINED.  

[nickpapageorgio81]

You refuse to acknowledge that these are philosophical differences and just continue to insist that you are right, which is where the problems arise.  That's the point of politics.....

That is because I am right.  Philosophical differences need not apply because Philosophical differences does not give anyone a right to overstep their duties and obtain more power than what is given to them by the Constitution.  A document set up as a firewall to prevent tyranny from a 2 party system.....More proof that I am right and your leftist professor is wrong.
AGAIN. REMEMBER:  In number 45 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, the man often referred to as The Father of the Constitution, wrote:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED."   That means it is NOT open to interpretation.

[nickpapageorgio81]

Jefferson had no choice when he was President but to support a central bank.  They were UNDER contract.  Andrew Stonewall Jackson killed it when the contract was up and was the only president to have the national debt at ZERO.  Did the citizens of this country in 1791 want a Central Bank or a strong Central Government?  Considering after Adams served 1 term then Hamilton's two main rivals Jefferson and Madison served 2 terms each back to back, I would assume the majority of the peeps voted against what we will vote against now. 

[NebraskaVol]

Obama extended PARTS of the Patriot Act, mostly to avoid criticism that he is weak against terrorism. It was a political move, not a philosophical one.

I see how it is.  Liberals howled their rights were being taken away when Bush signed it but because Barack Carter extends wiretapping, phone records and such it's a show of strength? 

[nickpapageorgio81]

I see how it is.  Liberals howled their rights were being taken away when Bush signed it but because Barack Carter extends wiretapping, phone records and such it's a show of strength? 

I remember when Mizzou told me I had to give up some liberties for the sake of security.

[NebraskaVol]

It's all part of that hope and change thing.

[mpalmer4]

Never said I liked it did I? I was explaining the reasons we were given.

[Cowboys]

If the constitution is a living breathing document, then it should be renamed to "A List of Suggestions".  The problem with libs is that in their world, there is no such thing as right or wrong.  No black or white, just millions of glorious shades of grey.  That line of thinking is what spawns moral relativism, a system in which there is no accountability, no personal responsibility, and no consequences for any action.