It doesn't. But then I'm not arguing that it does.
Posted on 10/25/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1859, Senator William Seward (R-NY) said:
"The Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders... The history of the Democratic Party commits it to the policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic Party, and no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present alarming culmination... Such is the Democratic Party... The government of the United States, under the conduct of the Democratic Party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery."
The more things change...
Funny you should mention that.
My daughter recently asked me what I was chuckling about. I showed her first one Lost Causer thread and then a couple more.
“I see what you’re talking about” she said. “These people are so blinded by pride that they’ve painted themselves into a corner”.
She went on to note that the Lost Cause Losers invariably lead by their chins. I asked how. She pointed out how they start the fight by posting provocative threads and then wait for any response. They then attack that response not by arguing their POV, but by personal attacks. - The same sort of low-brow tactics favored by those at DU.
The Lost Cause Losers go looking to be offended and then yelp when they get what they were seeking.
Her most interesting comment was about the Lost Cause Loser Jihadi tactic of using female posters as human shields. Applying a phony etiquette that allows a female to post any stupid thing that comes into her head, but castigating anyone who has the temerity to oppose her POV. Interesting. I guess it takes a female to see how other females operate.
She also commented on the hypocritical attitudes - on both sides - but noted the tendency of some to accuse others of “living on the Internet” when the accuser is demonstratively doing the same.
“You have some interesting friends” she told me, grinning.
“I always wanted one of those ant farms that they advertised in the comic books when I was a kid. This is the next best thing” ;-)
Well, well, it looks like The Punk is stalking and attacking you again, mstar.
However, his post is kinda funny if you think about The Punk having conversations with his 'make believe' friends and family.
It doesn't. But then I'm not arguing that it does.
BS. I can see that veracity isn't a dominant trait in your family. Projection, plain and simple.
Nice straw man. Really like the flower.
So you would say that all those are unconstitutional agencies?
Thank you pokie (and the other Lost Cause Loser as well) for proving my daughter’s point(s). I knew you wouldn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity ;-)
For something to be declared unconstitutional there has to be a plaintiff. As far as I know , no group or individual has calmed any of those named Govt. entities are unconstitutional. Go ahead hire a lawyer and go for it. Might win.
Yes but as your buddies point out, what the hell does the Supreme Court know anyway? Hoodat says all powers in the Constitution are explicit, nothing is implied. In which case it should be no trouble at all for you to come out and say if all those agencies are constitutional or not. Come on, central_va. Surely a genius like yourself doesn't need the Supreme Court to tell you what the Constitution says?
They were legally elected by the loyal Union people in those counties where the Confederate army did not have control.
Why do you believe on one hand a small majority can discard their constitutional obligation to the Union while on the other hand believe that a section of that state who want to remain loyal to the Constitution can't act on their own best interests and maintain their representatives in congress?
The mountain people of those Western counties had wanted to be away from the Tidewater aristocrats and their slave economy for decades before the civil war. The treason of the Virginian ruling class finally gave them the opportunity to do what they had wanted to do for 40 years.
The US Constitution, for the most part, is a negative document that says what FedGov™ can't do. IMO FedGov™ can try anything they want, they should be called on every single thing they try to do. The problem is the US Supreme Disappointment is way to passive now and has not done it's job. The USC is pretty clear, the problem is word smithing and trying to get away with some wild interpretation i.e. commerce clause.
The Constitution is really worthless at this point. Actually a Constitution that is not followed is dangerous and worse than no Constitution at all. For that situation leads to contempt in the intelligent and provides a fig leaf for the statist to do whatever they want to.
Technically they probably are. I am not complaining about them being unconstitutional nor is anyone else, so they exist.
Of the three, I would say NASA would be on the most shaky Constitutional ground.
In the end a piece of paper cannot protect the freedom of those that don't deserve it. Look in the mirror.
So if something is unconstitutional then it's perfectly OK so long as nobody complains about it? What a positively Davisonian point of view.
Of the three, I would say NASA would be on the most shaky Constitutional ground.
What clause in the Constitution explicitly authorizes the other two? Come on, you're ex-navy. Think intra-service rivalry. Here's your chance to either ream the Air Force or buddy up to them.
If you know anything about Constitutional law that is how it works. No plaintiff, no problemo.
Spoken like a true-blue Molotov-cocktail throwing anarchist.
Anyway go ahead file a lawsuit. There are plenty of bored Constitutional lawyers out there.
And speaking of 'conservative principles' it is interesting to note which of these two groups descendants voted for O'Bammy last time out and which did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.