Skip to comments.
Constitution- Who Cares?
The American Partisan ^
| 1/31/02
| James Antle III
Posted on 01/31/2002 6:40:31 AM PST by FreedomWarrior
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-168 next last
To: LincolnDefender
Little in life does not require a national policy? Really?
To: Wurlitzer
Wow!
Another American Man!
What kind of a breath of FResh air are you??!!
God bless you, Sir!
FReegards
Brian
To: ridensm
"There was a bill once which required the federal government to cite the Constitutional justification for all laws. It failed, of course. I think it was Sen. John Glen that said of this bill, then we wouldn't be able to do 95% of what we do."
Even if the government had to justify it's actions according to the Constitution it wouldn't matter. The "promote the General Welfare" part is all of the justification that Congress needs. I'm afraid that it will ultimately take another Civil War to straighten out this mess.
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
To: LincolnDefender
You are absolutely correct!
Every activity in life is political and require a national policy.
That's the beauty of modern warstate governance; ALL aspects of people's lives are on the table for inspection, so to speak.
Only scaredy-cats worry about trifles like 'constitutionality'; we've got a state to build!(irony off)
To: Jefferson Adams
Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who could actually cite how and why his actions were Constitutional instead of ones who only say the "C" word while repeating their oath of office?
Of course, we know that the Founders meant 'general welfare' to be a catch-all phrase to allow anything and everything not specifically allowed in the other articles, right?
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: FreedomWarrior
Try this - a column from the Univesity of Maryland Diamondback. http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2002/01/30/commentary3.html
30
posted on
01/31/2002 11:44:20 AM PST
by
AbnSarge
To: LincolnDefender
"
You will neither listen nor care, but you consented to the search by flying. The alternative to searching is no air travel. You could have walked and probably should have. " Don't buy that argument for 1 nano-second. I MUST travel to earn a living to pay for this unconstitutional government. I also have my hard earned money stolen and then given to the same airlines that could give a rats behind about the constitution. The FAA is controlling the skys, it is a government agency, it MUST abide by the constitution. As I was going to a staff meeting called by my boss, I could NOT walk away. It was a forced inspection without a search warrant plain and simple.
To: Wurlitzer
You are spot on Jefferson. While I resented the intrusion when these were private firms, I now demand my constitutional rights from Federal Thugs Very interesting thought here. Civil Rights violations? Sounds like injunction material to me. Blackbird.
To: LincolnDefender
To carry your " I could have walked away logic further" what happens when these rag heads start bombing super markets and the government "in the interest of security" decides we need federal inspectors at the doors.
Do I just walk away without buying food? Read the Federalist Papers and you will see why the 4th amendment is there. If you read them you will be a thousand percent smarter than any congress critter. The fact that you are on the FreeRepublic already means your 200% smarter than any government worker
To: Brian Allen
Thank you Brian! Quite nice of you to say that!
To: LincolnDefender
"Modernism"
That's the catch-phrase of every tinpot tyrant in the last 100 years.
'What about agricultural policy?' ...here's part of a policy: let landowners grow what they please.
Here's another...For national defence purposes, discreet action may be taken on many 'agricultural' fronts; don't need to clothe defence in socialist,'income-maintenance' schemes.
Unless the real purpose of these schemes is merely socialization and control.
How very 20th Century of you to be so swayed by the dizzying authority of the state!
To: LincolnDefender
What would your "Constitutional Republic" do differently about agriculture? About agriculture, well, How about instead of the globalist import/export, we eat what we grow here. When was the last time you bought a "Vine Ripe Tomato" at the supermarket? Bet you could have killed someone with it. The "Vine Ripe" came as an import from the global market, picked greener than hell and "ripened" in several weeks worth of shipping time from the global market place. Green tasteless garbage. Might as well be soylent green. If grown and consumed as the seasons permit here in MY Republic, the quality would be superior, period. Don't even try to tell me it's cheaper coming from YOUR Global Marketplace. That's one of many way's I can shoot down your globalist attitude, need more? Your disdain for MY Republic is showing in YOUR tone. Blackbird.
To: LincolnDefender
Let's jsut have a simple 3 paragraph answer on why we don't need a national policy on agriculture. What should the national policy cover? What power or authority does the federal government have over agriculture outside the obvious interstate commerce aspects?
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
Comment #39 Removed by Moderator
To: LincolnDefender
You must have gotten up on the fascist side of the bed this morning.
prambo
40
posted on
01/31/2002 12:20:29 PM PST
by
prambo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-168 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson