AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

You are an idiot.

If only you knew what happened in my experiences in the military, and actually before that. As they say, some of my most admired friends were black, but in my case it was actually true. I have told many people that the best drill sargeant I ever had in training was a black man. pom, you have so many stereotypical ideas that are wrong, that you really need to take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourself, why are you talking like this, throwing out insults without justification, and without one iota of evidence?

Actually, I never asked you The post is fairly close in line to this one. It was not addressed to you.

As a former journalist, I know when to ask a question and when not to and how to judge the emotional outbursts of the answerer.

I don't think okie ever looks in the mirror; he stands in front of it 24/7. He believes he's god's gift to conservatives.

Well, that kept me entertained for another couple of hours today. Goodnight.

Except the military HAS acted in the US as law enforcement officers, usually with deadly results.
And I am talking about the 20th century, not the 19th.

Do you Leftist Liberals not like answering questions? If so, is it because you do not know why you believe what you say you believe. Perhaps, you do not like answering questions, because you do not actually believe what you say you believe!

You Leftist Liberals haven't yet answered my question! With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree? Why?
================================
POWERS THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS OR DELEGATES:
The Constitution of the USA specifies both the powers it grants or delegates to the federal government, and some of the powers it specifies are not delegated to the federal government. Any power exercised by the federal government that the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government, or has specified not delegated to the federal government, is a power that is unlawful for the federal government to exercise.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to take private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned their property, and give their property to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned that property.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

The Constitution can only be lawfully changed by amending it according to the Constitution’s Article V. The Constitution cannot be lawfully changed by judicial, executive, or congressional decisions.

The fact that previous presidents have transferred wealth and the Supreme Court has not declared transfers of wealth unlawful, is not justification for the federal government continuing to transfer wealth.

I base these conclusions on the 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and on the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'm glad to see that others use this forum for amusement. I became tired while putting together a syllabus and found opening a2k refreshing. It is nice to type swiftly and not to have to work too hard!

We "leftist liberals" enjoy answering questions when they are well worded, interesting and challenging. Do you know anyone who might be able to compose such questions?

Are you referring to active duty or state national guards?

So, ican...
You defined "general" but didn't answer my question.

Is SS allowed under your definition of "general welfare"? After all it doesn't benefit everyone since only those over 62 can get it.

If you think SS is allowed then explain how it is under your definition?
If you don't think it is allowed then explain why you are violating the Constitution.

A good catch 22 issue for ican. Either he's lying, or he's a hypocrite; nothing else.

Both actually, but mostly the NG.

I believe the Posse Comitatus Act only restricts use of active duty military by the Federal govt. States can call up the guard because it is under state control.

Eisenhower used the 101st Airborne Division to enforce desegregation law in Arkansas at Little Rock High School.

Doesnt that violate the Posse Comitatus act also?

A president as commander in chief can use the military in any way he sees fit.

They weren't acting as police officers in that case.

Parados, I think Social Security--about a third of my retirement income is paid by Social Security--is a violation of the Constitution.

I'm hoping to be paid back all the money I paid into Social Security prior to my retirement, before I kick the bucket..

Yeah, cicerone, I am something else. I'm an old buzzard trying to get back what the feds took from me before I retired. If I had the choice at the time, I would have purchased US Savings Bonds with that money and been able to retire with a larger income.

The Feds didn't 'take' that from you. You voluntarily entered into the program by remaining a citizen of the US. If you didn't like it, you could have left. You chose not to. Ergo.

Cycloptichorn