OT: r - I thought you should see this

Page 6 of 11  
Larry Blanchard wrote: ...

Except it reverses the argument seems to me... :)
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Trickle? IF the Dems get control of the Congress AND the presidency, it won't be a trickle.

I hear McCain made the mistake of actually calling himself a liberal Republican. I am beginning to think that conservatism died with Buckley.

The press has never really liked Hilliary as a person, and I think that she has also made a lot of Dem enemies. But she was the leading (or at least A leading) Democrat so she got nothing but good press. But now with the ascension of the messiah . . .

My only hope is that if the Dems take control of the House, that the Reps can maintain control of the Senate (or vice versa). A deadlocked Congress would be better than either party having control. This, of course, is also hoping that the Reps would finally get some balls.

Amen brudda.

Schwarzenegger has always been a RINO. His latest project seems to be another "peripheral canal" project that the voters of California have rejected three times already. And like Bush, he seems to be spending money faster than a drunken Democrat. When he was elected, he was one of the most popular governors the state has ever had. I would say that was mostly because he was a famous actor, but who am I to say. But ever since, his popularity has been declining. Just not enough to do anything about it. I think he may be in for a fight when it comes time for his re-election.

Now the messiah has come.

But with our presidential choices, that will happen regardless of which party you vote for.

Same here. Just don't know what I can do about it. A vote for President seems kinda useless at this point. Choosing between a bowl of cat shit or a bowl of dog shit isn't much of a choice. I'll have to agree that the only thing we can do now is work more on House and Senate candidates.

If it is real, it would be amazing that the press printed it. Even with the coming of the messiah. Maybe . . .just maybe. . .someone in the press has a sense of humor. Maybe just didn't catch it? Or maybe it was totally on purpose.

I am old and cranky, but each of us will have to define "mean" in our own way. Some will think that the socialist leanings of the left are mean while others will think that the "anti-socialist" leanings of the right (if there is still such a thing) are mean.
Well, my grand daughter is screaming for me to come to her birthday party so I gotta go. (She's 4).
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NoOne N Particular wrote:

You gotta be kidding me. You think W and the Republic-controlled legislature didn't already bequeath us with a *deluge* of statist actions, spending, and so forth? I'm not talking about the Iraq war here, either. I'm talking about the execrable "Drug Benefits Program", the similarly vile "No Child Left Behind" nonsense, the funding of "Faith Based Charities" and a host of other Statist / Collectivist programs that are neither sane nor Constitutional.
The next election will have a statist in some form as President of the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to the bottom of the socialist sewer..
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not "communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated policies of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from the productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it? Or, the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US economy in the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the situation pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...

That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6 decades that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the constitutional republic.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

So does shared liability, but that just isn't scary enough is it? Are you also opposed to insurance plans?

Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.
Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."
That became the general welfare clause. I think that that is evidence of the general intentions. And it was used by the supreme court in deciding that, indeed, congress has the power to enact laws for the general welfare.
Just can't get over it can you?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

Which has nothing to do with entitlement programs. Remember that the constitution was formulated after the original approach failed because states were taxing commerce between themselves in the same manner of countries and were enacting legislation that was endangering the harmony of the states.

Which has zip to do with wealth re-distribution and entitlement programs.

Can't get over the fact that people have used this term to abuse the intent of the founders and the federal republic form of government? Nope.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

... snip

Just one other thought. I assume by the reasoning you provide, and since the general welfare clause is in the preamble, you wholeheartedly support Bush's terrorist surveillance program. After all, it is being done to promote the general welfare and ensure peace and domestic tranquility (if you are not a terrorist). Should fit completely within your definition of the scope of the federal government.
One other thought, given your rationale above, is there *anything* that Congress could not do if they used the argument it was being done for the "general welfare"?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

The violations in the patriot act are enumerated in our bill of rights, so they are expressly prohibited.

Sure. Anything that is NOT for the general welfare or otherwise violates the constitution. We have that nasty old USSC to watch out for that, plus numerous groups whose sole purpose in existing is to watch for stuff like that.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

... snip

Are you really sure that was the intent of those who wrote the bill of rights? After all, your perceived violations in the patriot act are really there for the general welfare and are not directed at "we the people" of the US, but at foreigners.

That's what I thought. Anything someone can wrap a "general welfare" claim around is pretty much allowable. Kind of like the Clinton administration attempt at gun control near schools under the interstate commerce clause. The argument they made was that since educated citizens were vital to interstate commerce, the ability of the federal government to enforce gun-free areas around schools was a reasonable application of the interstate commerce clause. The judge who heard the case laughed them out of court asking, "with that rationale, is there *anything* that would not fit into that clause?"
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Do you discount the Declarations words that say "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..."
Not all americans, but all men.
"We, the people" describes the ones writing the Constitution and the people of the new country. Its predecessor stated that all men have certain rights. Liberty is one of them. The constitution then states that liberty cannot be deprived without due process of law. If liberty is an unalienable right of men, and it cannot be deprived of them without due process, then why does the patriot act suspend habeus corpus, even for US citizens?
It does the general welfare of the US no good to deprive the citizens of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. So, in answer to your question; no, the general welfare clause cannot be used to justify the patriot act.

Exactly! You can see that the limits are still there and must be justified. You can try anything you want, and the lawyers and legislators do. But they usually do not get through, or they are overturned on appeal. See how great the system works?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?

What provision of "the patriot act" that has not been overturned by the Supreme Court suspends habeas corpus for US citizens? Incidentally the Declaration of Independence has little force in law, quoting from it is irrelevant.

Of what specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution have citizens been deprived?

Or the court gets threatened with packing, which is how Social Security was forced through--Roosevelt threatened to double the number of Justices and make sure that all the new ones agreed with his program and the Court caved. One mistake the Founders made was not specifying the number of Justices or providing some limit on changes in their number intended to prevent such activity.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution; The Declaration of Independence. Not the system of governance.

I did not say that the provision had not been overturned, I said the patriot act suspended it. Nonetheless, our President, with consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example - but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.

Ask Mr. Padilla if he thinks that his rights as a US citizen have been deprived. According to the patriot act, if you are suspected of terrorist activities, you may be detained indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without representation, regardless of whether you are a US citizen or not. Is that enough for you?

Have their decisions been overturned? FDR is dead. There is no further threat from him and I think the justices made the right decision. Why have the incorrect decisions not been overturned by subsequent courts if they are so egregious? I think it is because the decisions were correct and needed. FDR just provided the leverage the court needed to do the right thing.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

Has anyone figured out a way to challenge those rulings? The court can only rule on those cases that come before it.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Don't pay your taxes and claim that the law is illegal when it compels you to pay for services provided under the general welfare clause. Take it all the way to the USSC. Stand up for your beliefs! Or do you just like to argue?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

So what? If the provision you find objectionable has been overturned by the courts then what are you whining about?

Yes, they have locked people up. What of it? Quite frankly, the "rights" of noncitizens who attempt to cause trouble for the US are a matter of crashing indifference to me. Most of them don't have any such "rights" in whatever country they came from, so why should we treat them any differently?

I figured you were going to try that.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf
The system worked, the law was overturned, is that enough for you?
Now, for bonus points find the appropriate section of the US Code (don't anybody help the boy, wading through the US Code will do him good) and read it and tell us what it says.
You really should do your own research instead of just regurgitating whatever your master says.
<snip>
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

<<Major snippage>>

There are still provisions that provide for suspension of habeus corpus in the current version that has not yet been overturned. Any whining that you are hearing is coming from your end, not mine.

Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi are US citizens. Perhaps you should take the time to read before you respond.

And you should defend the destruction of our civil liberties by presidential decree in Cuba. You would be more popular there.
Americans don't like it much, when you start taking away our rights.
Here is the appropriate code for the above reference:
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And this one (the one you hate so much)
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Can you show me a declaration of war that exempts the government from the fifth amendment?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those men were held for years while the Bush administration stalled in the courts. That, despite the fact that the matter has been settled law for over two hundred years and no USSC has ever ruled in favor of a President unilaterally suspending habeas corpus,.

Padilla and Hamdi are not noncitizens. The only reason anyone outside of the Administration even knew that Padilla was in custody was because they bragged about it. We have no way of knowing how many citizens the may still be holding.
All innocent people have the same right to defend themselves from accusation that they 'cause trouble'.

Because we are Americans.

He should have been free while the government appealed. If the government can keep a man imprisoned for years while appealing habeas, the writ is rendered ineffective.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.

Preceded the Articles of Confederation.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Declaration.
Didn't you recognize the words?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.