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...
LOL.
You sure shanked that punt.
Man, dealing with you is like dealing with the channeled spirit of King George III.
Have you ever read it? I see a lot of "Congress shall have the power..." and not a lot of "Congress shall not have the power..." In fact there are a whole lot more 'Thou shalt nots' directed to the states than to the Congress.
Actually a Constitution that is not followed is dangerous and worse than no Constitution at all.
Not at all, so long as nobody is complaining about it. Wasn't that your point in reply 233?
This is the principal concept of Constitutional Law. If the supreme court doesn't say it is unconstitutional than it is Constitutional until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty type situation. You are obviously a neophyte in this area. I know Constitutional Lawyers they have explained to me this simple concept, and you can grasp it too, eventually. I have confidence.
Wouldn't NASA be a decedent of Virginian President Jefferson using federal money to finance a scientific/exploration expedition of two other Virginians named Louis and Clark?
Most of the things the FedGov™ does under the "commerce clause" should be shot down. It hasn't because the Supreme Court has proven to be a statist engine and politically corrupt.
Like I said only SCOTUS can determine if NASA is Constitutional or not. Your opinion really means nothing. If nobody brings a law suit up then it stands.
That is the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Constitution as well as other amendments beyond the first ten grant many powers and responsibilities to the Federal government and also impose restrictions and mandates upon the states.
It is not accurate to say that the Constitution is a 'negative' document.
Or is it because nobody has filed a lawsuit? No plaintiff, no problemo. Isn't that how it works?
Besides I chose three agencies that don't depend on the Commerce Clause. Explain to us all why they aren't constitutional?
Forget Lewis and Clark, what clause of the Constitution explicitly allowed Jefferson to buy Louisiana?
LOL. As I recall reading, Jefferson himself didn't think he was authorized to do so, but it was just too good of a deal to pass up. ;~))
Apparently, everyone else agreed and no one ever challenged it.
We have state attorneys General filing Obama care lawsuits, I think on "commerce clause" grounds. We'll see. The problem is that SCOTUS cases have gone up and the commerce clause has been abused to sustain all kinds of BS. Once precedence has been set the Constitution becomes pretty worthless. The words lose their meaning. I've pretty much given up on the republic and the Constitution, as you know. I want a clean start.
Like I said maybe they are Unconstitutional, I'm not complaining and nobody else is either. So the discussion is moot.
I have read many of them. Stop the a$$ kissing. I’m not misstating jack and you know it. I would guess NS is one of the most hated filled, reviled posters on FR. Barely a day passes that he doesn’t call some FReeper a name or berate Southerners. I’ve posted some of his vile remarks about Southerners in general. I’m sure you are aware of them.
One of those 'no harm, no foul' actions I guess.
Psssst..... Here’s Thanksgiving Day in 2001 loser.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=1616483
Now eat your words. Yes, he/she was on FR on that day fighting the CW as usual
As moot as the question of unilateral secession is?
As moot as the question of unilateral secession is?
I agree. Nobody complained, it stands. Probably is unconstitutional because the purchase was like a treaty of sorts....
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.