AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

1. You are correct, it is Madison in 45. My mistake.
How do you get that it doesn't say what I quoted however?

2. What does Butler have to do with your argument other than undermine it?

Quote:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution

The law was unconstitutional because of how it was applied not because it violated the listed powers. It intervened in states rights when it attempted to coerce farmers into acting a certain way based on payments.

1 Reply

Obama and his MAL allies are gangsters violating the USA Constitution as Amended, "the supreme law of the land." They are transfering wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it. They are thereby traitors to their oaths of office, and should all be impeached and removed from office.

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
GETTING TO $787 BILLION WITH BARACK OBAMA STIMULUS

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/memo_to_obama_you_will_not_out.html
LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ABOUT THE POLICIES HE ADVOCATES

Quote:

...
Senator Obama, before you decrease my livelihood, compromise and possibly destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of very successful working-class small business owners who are my friends and clients, before you destroy the jobs of the middle class who you say you are trying to help, and before you destroy the aspirations of young Americans who aspire to be successful, please read this letter in its entirety.

I would appreciate a direct and complete personal response. This letter is far more important than any policy paper your campaign advisors have ever given you. I advise you sit down to read it because of its 9323 words, 20-pages, and the numerous serious questions it poses....

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama and his MAL allies are gangsters violating the USA Constitution as Amended, "the supreme law of the land." They are transfering wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it. They are thereby traitors to their oaths of office, and should all be impeached and removed from office.

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
GETTING TO $787 BILLION WITH BARACK OBAMA STIMULUS

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/memo_to_obama_you_will_not_out.html
LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA ABOUT THE POLICIES HE ADVOCATES

Quote:
...
Senator Obama, before you decrease my livelihood, compromise and possibly destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of very successful working-class small business owners who are my friends and clients, before you destroy the jobs of the middle class who you say you are trying to help, and before you destroy the aspirations of young Americans who aspire to be successful, please read this letter in its entirety.

I would appreciate a direct and complete personal response. This letter is far more important than any policy paper your campaign advisors have ever given you. I advise you sit down to read it because of its 9323 words, 20-pages, and the numerous serious questions it poses....

The problem with the idiot who wrote that letter, is that he mistakenly believed the business environment would remain static. It of course does not. Now that changes are coming, he should show suppleness and adjust to the new situation; instead, he shows intransigence, and will be hurt by his own unwillingness to adjust.

He's also an asshole who appeals to the 'spirit of Joe the Plumber.' By which I guess he means the spirit of an idiot, who owes lots of back taxes, who never had a business license and therefore was operating illegally, and who likes to make vapid and empty statements about complicated topics - to no discernible effect whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, the statement you boldfaced is not a logical implication of Madison No.45.

Quote:

It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution

Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

1 Reply

Ican, you have never answered my question about whether or not it is a transfer of wealth, and unjustified, to use Federal funds to feed, clothe and house the inmates of Federal penitentiaries.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The idea that Obama is responsible for the current financial crisis belongs on the laugher curve as well as those who continue to blame Obama for the problems businesses are now having - all around the world.

Some posters here don't know the difference between who or what to blame, so they assign all the problems to Obama - who has been in office for only five months. They are unable to think of any problems associated with Bush's eight years in office to the current problems. Go figure.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
You have never once defended me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused.

Bull.

You're right and I apologize. The line should have been "I have never once SEEN you defend me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused."

Nope, still bull.

What you mean to say is: "I have CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN EVER HAVING SEEN you defend me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:
You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.

Quote:
CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.

What are you talking about?

CJ wrote: "Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple."

What is there to confirm here? It's plain-spoken English. He called Obama's supporters enemies of the USA. And you were OK with that.

3 Replies

@nimh,

Yeah, but you're a liberal nimh, so verbatim quotes of a conservative by you are inherently untrustworthy.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It is NOT a transfer of wealth, and IT IS justified, to use Federal funds to feed, clothe and house the inmates of Federal penitentiaries FOR AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY.

It is among the normal federal costs of Article I Section 8, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes";
and
to pay the direct and implied normal federal costs for the processes of Amendment VI, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

2 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.

Quote:
CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.

What are you talking about?

CJ wrote: "Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple."

What is there to confirm here? It's plain-spoken English. He called Obama's supporters enemies of the USA. And you were OK with that.

Absolutely. The idea that any and all statements must be parsed out and carefully explained in order to be introduced as evidence is asinine and a dodge for one who is unwilling to admit holding two sets of standards.

And the funniest part is, this only matches rhetoric written by the same person time and time again. It isn't some odd comment or one-off. Ceej has been dropping accusations of treason and various violent anti-liberal messages here for years.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

to pay the direct and implied normal federal costs

You mean the constitution can "imply" that congress can spend money on something? Isn't that some pretty drunken veering from your "strict constructionist" argument?

0 Replies

damned libruls. especially the dutch ones. always speaking with tulips, an all.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

But you have to admit they are colorful. LOL

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm guessing at face value,

That much is true.

Foxfyre wrote:

based purely on the wording of the decision,

No -- based on what some person of unknown credentials said on answers.com about the decision. If you have read the actual decision, you have not shown any evidence of it yet.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The idea that Obama is responsible for the current financial crisis belongs on the laugher curve as well as those who continue to blame Obama for the problems businesses are now having - all around the world.

You are correct! Obama did not start the current financial crisis. The current financial crisis was started by the Democrat Congressional majorities in 2007 and 2008 who refused to correct in 2007 and 2008 the 2FMs faulty lending practices, and Bush's transfers of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it..

However, Obama and the Democrat Congress are responsible for greatly expanding the current financial crisis by greatly expanding the 2FMs faulty lending practices, and greatly expanding the transfers of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But you have to admit they are colorful. LOL

and firmly planted in their ideas. hah!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Parados, the statement you boldfaced is not a logical implication of Madison No.45.

Parados didn't claim it is. And of course it isn't! Instead, it's a logical implication of the Supreme Court rejecting Madison's view of the Welfare Clause in favor of Hamilton's!

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.

Quote:
CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.

What are you talking about?

CJ wrote: "Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple."

What is there to confirm here? It's plain-spoken English. He called Obama's supporters enemies of the USA. And you were OK with that.

The subject of the post was the multi billion bailout. Obama has supported that. I can easily assume that CJ was still referring to that with the Obama's supporters line. In his opinion, those who support that kind of insane and irresponsible spending are no friend to the United States. The opposite of 'friend' is 'enemy'. Can you honestly say that you have not accused Bush supporters of worse when they have supported specific issues which you abhor?

The fact that you let those of like mind with you say virtually anything however crude, unkind, or ugly to or about anybody so long as you presumably agree with them suggests that you are holding CJ to a different standard. Are you?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

The preamble to the constitution calls upon the government to promote the general welfare. Why is not a burdensome redistribution of wealth to pay to house, clothe and feed inmates in Federal penitentiaries, but you seem to think that it is a burdensome redistribution of wealth to provide monies to feed, clothe and house dependent children, who are not capable of earning the necessary monies themselves, and who are not responsible for having been brought into this world? Who, indeed, are guilty of no crime?

There is little of either logic, or of charity in what passes for an argument at your house. Certainly there is nothing which could be described as Christian virtue.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know