Mine was perfectly accurate: a choice between Obama and Romney is absolutely a Morton's Fork is concerned so far as NBC eligibility is concerned. It is a Morton's Fork so far as judicial appointments are concerned. (Romney's appointments are not different than Obama's.) Romney even instituted Romneycare, the father of Obamacare! Romney's for "assault waepon" bans. Thus I say Romney is no different than Obama in any field that actually matters.
If you cannot see that Romney is FAR better than the Communist in terms of morality then you don’t know what the term means. There is NO doubt about this.
See the above. Telling someone that eating their parents is morally superior to eating their children is avoiding the true issue that cannibalism is immoral. I doubt that your understanding of what the Constitution means would be very convincing considering the rest of your overblown rhetoric.
Really? I've spent the last three or four years investigating how to challenge contra-constitutional laws [statutes]. And I cannot challenge them aside from taking the weak point of violating such statute (because of 'standing') in order to challenge it.
What the fuck have you done?
Most of the WoD is waged by states and localities.
Irrelevant. If the 14th Amendment has incorperated the bill of rights, then all such locality action is violative of the Constitution; if not, well then, that makes for an interesting ball-game.
There is plenty of Constitutional authority for many of the feds actions.
Nope! Fast and Furious was an active act of war, state sponsored terrorism, and the active conspiracy against rights [fed felony]. The war on drugs is contrary to the Constitution by not being within the enumerated powers; in addition to that there is the precedence of the 18th amendment, meaning that the Constitution had to have an amendment for the federal government to have the authority to regulate a substance [in that case alcohol]. In the Case of the EPA, their rules and fines are contrary the 8th Amendment. The DOE, DOE, NEA [edu], USDA, and DEA are all excessive of the powers granted via Art 1, Sec 8.
But much of your doubt is rooted in your inability to understand what the constitution says and means.
Really? Show me hoe. Also let me appeal to its predecessor:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.It seems to me that the federal government is indeed "destructive of these ends."
Your actions will assist the Usurper to remain in office. That is beyond a doubt. Joining the Lovers of Losers is a futile and infantile gesture only helping the enemies of America.
No, it is not my actions that will; but my inaction. To wit, that I am too much a coward to abolish the evils to which I have become accustomed.
Your last remark is typical of those claiming “principled opposition” to supporting a candidate who could be an actual winner. Since practical actions are verboten they always raise the standard and propose things which are not in question such as armed violence. Immature silliness.
Ah, and yet the 'mature' route is to throw in with someone who is exactly the same? Fuck that.
Hell, the only reason I'm not running is that I'm not eligible (too young)... but I think I'd be a far better choice than Romney.
What you fail to hear is what I have said: there is no difference between the two. Before, with McCain v. Obama, the "lesser of two evils" argument might have worked, but this case is different, the only difference is that Romney is a socialist and Obama is a... oh, socialist. It is for this reason that I can easily say that I won't vote for either of them.
Being "electable" doesn't mean that I have to vote for the guy; hell I'd be 'unelectable' because I think the fed-gov is overreaching, that I'd reduce the size thereof, that I hate injustice and would do my ever-loving best to put the terror of God into those officials who are corrupt in our government... hell, that I consider homosexuality to be a "biologically suicidal philosophy which should not be encouraged."
It is simply a LIE to claim Romney is no different than Obama. There is not a shred of truth in such silliness, typical as it is among the Lovers of Losers. Hence, your analogy is totally invalid.
Romneycare is the product primarily of the Mass. legislature which the majority of its citizens wanted. THAT alone is sufficient to show that it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
States are the political entities wherein such experiments are to be made.
I am sure you have been wildly successful challenging unconstitutional laws particularly with no real understanding of the constitution itself.
Obviously the 14th amendment does NOT incorporate the Bill of Rights or we would not have hundreds Gun Control Laws violating the 2d passed by states. Nor is there anything in the constitution which would prevent states from enacting anti-drug laws. States are precisely the arena for all aspects of criminal law.
Since you are a Constitutional law expert I also assume you realize that the BoR was not intended to apply to the states, only to the federal government.
The “enumerated powers” argument was never accepted by the writers or even Jefferson. They all understood that the Constitution was a FRAMEWORK for government not a blueprint. If you want a clear understanding what is or is not constitutional you should make a careful study of Hamilton’s essay on the National Bank.
Almost all the Founders understood that the fact of sovereignty itself has certain powers incorporated within the concept. And that the enumerated powers have associated with them various powers which are necessary means to carrying out those powers.
There is nothing in the Constitution which specifically empowers the federal government to patrol the border, yet who is foolish enough to claim that that is not a constitutional action? Implied powers are within the constitution particularly since language specifying that “...only...” was explicitly rejected as in “...only these powers...” or “...only specified powers...” at the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitution was written PRIMARILY to increase the power of the federal government and decrease that of the states.
There is nothing in the 18th amendment preventing the federal government from controlling substances or material from entering the country. That is primarily where it fights the WoSD. In addition, we have TREATIES which require fighting the WoSD so the unconstitutional argument is dead in the water. If you have researched these matters as you claim (though crackpot websites and writings are not a good source for research) then you will know that treaties are incorporated into the “...supreme Law of the Land.” once they get Senatorial ratification.
Nor do EPA rules violate the 8th amendment outside of your opinion. Congress has been concerned with water pollution for over a hundred years under the belief that sovereignty itself allows control over the waters of the nation. This reasoning also applies to air and ground pollution. As to the fines which actually get paid they are generally arrived at by working down from the statutory maximums and negotiation with the violators. Some might be reasonably called excessive but there has been little effort to challenge the laws themselves on constitutional ground.
None of the agencies you specify as unwarranted expansion are clearly unconstitutional. Unwise or useless but not unconstitutional.
Perhaps you missed the point of the Declaration (which was not a foundation for a government but a rhetorical document to justify rebellion). It speaks of changing the “form” of government. Now there are only a limited number of forms of government: a republic, a monarchy, a tyranny (a dictatorship would fall under this) or an aristocracy. This has been clear since Aristotle discussed the issue. What FORM do you advocate if not a “republic”? Remember that the Constitution itself declares that the states will be guaranteed a republic form of government.
Hence, the rhetoric describing the situation in 1776 is inappropriate now. The government we have NOW is the result of what the PEOPLE wanted. Changing the government is impossible without changing the PEOPLE.
Our Founders made sure that the People had representation and the only real way to change the government is by elections. Hence, your futile and infantile gesture is really saying that the Founders were wrong and the People cannot be trusted. BTW changes in government were deliberately made difficult since the FF believed the real danger was from a fickle and irresolute People.
Only the Crackpot Right and Crackpot Left believes the alternatives are the “same”. Since they are a tiny minority they really don’t matter. Leaps into Irrelevance.
In order to become President you have to be able to WIN the presidency. You could not truthfully get elected dogcatcher in a One Dog Town using nothing but falsehoods and hysterical rhetoric. Well, maybe as a Democrat.
You can’t just call someone a name and MAKE them that. So, unfortunately for you, Romney does not become a “socialist” at your labeling him such.
If you come upon an arsonist pouring gasoline on a fire and a fireman pouring water on it, you would be the guy shooting at the fireman claiming they both are the same.