2
   

Fear of a Black President

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 05:36 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Quote:
USA Constitution, Article II.Section 2. The President ... shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;


But the USA Constitution does not empower the Congress or the President to give away income from taxes to individual Americans. However, there is nothing wrong with private charities helping individuals buy health insurance they cannot otherwise afford.


It doesn't matter one iota which part of the constitution you quote to support your "arguments", does it, Ican? Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 05:40 pm
It's really comical that ican can state what our Constitution says about our government giving money to individual Americans, but supports Bush and his weakening of the Constitution by his illegal wiretaps and torture.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 05:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's really comical that ican can state what our Constitution says about our government giving money to individual Americans, but supports Bush and his weakening of the Constitution by his illegal wiretaps and torture.


When it comes to the constitution and things legal, ican most certainly can't.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 07:12 pm
Bush is not weakening the Constitution by his permitting wiretaps of foreign calls between foreigners and between USA residents and foreigners "in time of war or public danger." Bush is not weakening the Constitution by permitting water-boarding (or equivalent) captured mass murderers of non-murderers to learn "in time of war or public danger" the mass murdering plans of their uncaptured associates.[/quote]

What in the 5th Amendment and Article I.Section 9., 1st paragraph, is it you cannot accept to be part of the Constitution?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 07:20 pm
I also don't give a damn what color he is. Or what religion he is.

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 07:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If the federal government establishes a mandate that all who appear in the hospital emergency room must be served must also fund that mandate. When they create laws without the proper funding, hospitals go bankrupt.

What is it that is so difficult to understand?

The federal government is not empowered by the USA Constitution to establish a mandate that all who appear in the hospital emergency room must be served. That mandate is something the individual states or individual hospitals are free to establish and fund with the aid of charities if they choose.

Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 08:50 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Bush is not weakening the Constitution by his permitting wiretaps of foreign calls between foreigners and between USA residents and foreigners "in time of war or public danger." Bush is not weakening the Constitution by permitting water-boarding (or equivalent) captured mass murderers of non-murderers to learn "in time of war or public danger" the mass murdering plans of their uncaptured associates.

What in the 5th Amendment and Article I.Section 9., 1st paragraph, is it you cannot accept to be part of the Constitution?


By the above statement, are you saying that those waterboarded were found guilty of the crimes you listed? By the above, are you honest enough to admit we ignore the international treaties we sign?

I don't know if anyone has been following it, but the first Military commission of a Gitmo prisoner is going on right now, and it's super shady. The case is built completely on information coerced out of a man with a 4th grade education and who was deliberately not told that his statements could be used against him. This is super shady business, and it will shame our country.

Of course, decades after all the prisoners will have died, the government will issue an apologies and cut a check for $7000.00 to the families. That money should buy a bicycle by that time.

Hamden, was never read any rights because the Bush administration insists that the constitution does not apply there (on US soil), a claim that the Supreme court has rejected, but the White house proceeds as if it was merely a suggestion. Limited media access. A jury of 6 all American officers. The list goes on.

So why prosecute Hamden, who was Osama Bin Laden's driver, while releasing OBL's chief of security in 2004? Because if you can prosecute Hitler's gardener, virtually nobody is off limits.

BTW, it's noteworthy that the White House has said that even if found innocent, Hamden could be held indefinitely. Take a moment to wrap your mind around that. This means that you can serve a life sentence before and/or after you are found innocent, and guess who is in charge, we are. We are using the same authority there that Bush claims does not apply there to put this man on trial. We have a Judge saying "This is not America." Well where does this judge think he is? What laws/rules are they operating by? Who oversees this? Where is the justice in any of this? This is both cruel and unusual punishment, and worse is that it's being done before someone is even found to be guilty.

ican, I can admit when Bush does something right, can you admit when he does something illegal or wrong? Can you really defend this? Do you really think the president has this power despite the Supreme court telling him 3 times he does not?

Maybe the judge was right...

This is not America
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 08:59 pm
From library.findlaw.com:

In response to a number of widely reported horror stories about emergency rooms turning away seriously ill or injured patients who had no insurance and no money to pay for treatment, in 1986 the United States Congress passed what became known as the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA or the "Act"). This Act is also known as the "anti-dumping" statute. Prior to the 1986 law, there was no requirement on the part of hospitals to treat everyone who came to the emergency room and, in many states, the hospital was not liable for damages caused by the hospital''s refusal to treat a patient. A hospital could choose not to treat a patient who did not have insurance or enough money to pay for the required medical treatment. Sometimes patients would die or suffer serious injuries as the result of a transfer or delay in treatment. To prohibit such patient dumping, Congress enacted the antidumping provisions of the EMTALA.

Liability under the Act

The Act applies to all hospitals which have emergency rooms and which participate in the Medicare program. Almost all hospitals, public and private, receive Medicare funds; therefore, almost all hospitals are covered by the federal Act. The Act imposes two principal obligations on hospitals. First, it requires that when a person seeks treatment at a hospital''s emergency room, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists or whether the patient is in active labor. Second, if the screening examination reveals that such an emergency medical condition does exist, the hospital ordinarily must "stabilize" the medical condition before transferring or discharging the patient from the emergency room. Basically, this means that the hospital must make sure that the patient can be transferred safely to another hospital without further endangerment to the patient''s health or, in the case of active labor, the baby''s health.

If a person suffers injury because the hospital did not provide an appropriate screening examination or because it did not stabilize the patient''s condition before releasing or transferring the patient, then that person may hold the hospital liable for money damages based on the violation of the Act.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:00 pm
ican doesn't know what he's talking about 99% of the time.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:00 pm
When he's right 1% of the time, it's probably more by accident then by knowledge of facts.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 03:30 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Bush is not weakening the Constitution by his permitting wiretaps of foreign calls between foreigners and between USA residents and foreigners "in time of war or public danger." Bush is not weakening the Constitution by permitting water-boarding (or equivalent) captured mass murderers of non-murderers to learn "in time of war or public danger" the mass murdering plans of their uncaptured associates.

What in the 5th Amendment and Article I.Section 9., 1st paragraph, is it you cannot accept to be part of the Constitution?


By the above statement, are you saying that those waterboarded were found guilty of the crimes you listed?

...

NO, I am not saying they were found guilty of mass murdering non-murderers. But I am saying they were prisoners of war captured by our military in the act of mass murdering non-murderers, or captured by our military attempting to do so, or captured by our military threatening to do so, or captured by our military among those planning to do so. As such they are not entitled to habeas corpus. They are entitled only to be treated as prisoners of war for the duration of the war: incarceration; interrogation; shelter; food; and clothing.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 03:52 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
From library.findlaw.com:

In response to a number of widely reported horror stories about emergency rooms turning away seriously ill or injured patients who had no insurance and no money to pay for treatment, in 1986 the United States Congress passed what became known as the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA or the "Act").
...

This act is illegal. The USA Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to adopt such a law. Courts that approve such a law are legislating Constitutional law and are not interpreting Constitutional Law.

Such a law can be made legal only after a Constitutional Amendment is adopted that delegates Congress the power to pass such a law. One way an amendment to the USA Constitution can be adopted is if two-thirds of the Congress propose it and three-quarters of the state legislatures ratify it. See USA Constitution Article V.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 04:01 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
From library.findlaw.com:

In response to a number of widely reported horror stories about emergency rooms turning away seriously ill or injured patients who had no insurance and no money to pay for treatment, in 1986 the United States Congress passed what became known as the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA or the "Act").
...

This act is illegal. The USA Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to adopt such a law. Courts that approve such a law are legislating Constitutional law and are not interpreting Constitutional Law.

Such a law can be made legal only after a Constitutional Amendment is adopted that delegates Congress the power to pass such a law. One way an amendment to the USA Constitution can be adopted is if two-thirds of the Congress propose it and three-quarters of the state legislatures ratify it. See USA Constitution Article V.


Congress has the power to make whatever laws it likes. If the president signs those laws, they are legal. If you disagree, I would advise you to challenge the case in court. Please remember that you have to show specific standing to be able to do so; a wrong or grievance in some way.

You don't seem to understand much about how our government actually works, do you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 04:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
From library.findlaw.com:

In response to a number of widely reported horror stories about emergency rooms turning away seriously ill or injured patients who had no insurance and no money to pay for treatment, in 1986 the United States Congress passed what became known as the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA or the "Act").
...

This act is illegal. The USA Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to adopt such a law. Courts that approve such a law are legislating Constitutional law and are not interpreting Constitutional Law.

Such a law can be made legal only after a Constitutional Amendment is adopted that delegates Congress the power to pass such a law. One way an amendment to the USA Constitution can be adopted is if two-thirds of the Congress propose it and three-quarters of the state legislatures ratify it. See USA Constitution Article V.


Congress has the power to make whatever laws it likes. If the president signs those laws, they are legal. If you disagree, I would advise you to challenge the case in court. Please remember that you have to show specific standing to be able to do so; a wrong or grievance in some way.

You don't seem to understand much about how our government actually works, do you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn

Congress does not have the power to make whatever laws it likes. Congress has only those powers explicitly granted to it by the USA Constitution. If the president signs illegal laws passed by Congress, those laws are still illegal.

Quote:
USA Constitution
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
definition of imposts

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

I understand a great deal about "how our government actually works." What I have been telling you and have been showing you is that our government is currently working in a very illegal manner. If that is not stopped pronto, our country will continue to rapidly desolve into a totalitarian state.

Lord Woodhouselee, circa 1778 wrote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.


Currently, our government is increasingly being run by COVETERS and their accomplices.

I AM WHAT AM on stone wrote:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 04:55 pm
Hahah. Congress has the power to make the laws; The president has the power to sign the laws and make them legal. The Supreme Court can rule that the laws are unConstitutional and therefore illegal, but until they do that, the laws have the full force of the US gov't behind them.

I understand that you claim huge parts of our modern society are exactly that - unConstitutional, and therefore illegal - and that's an okay position to have. You can exercise your right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues; but other then that I'm afraid there isn't much you can do.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:20 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Hahah. Congress has the power to make the laws; The president has the power to sign the laws and make them legal. The Supreme Court can rule that the laws are unConstitutional and therefore illegal, but until they do that, the laws have the full force of the US gov't behind them.

I understand that you claim huge parts of our modern society are exactly that - unConstitutional, and therefore illegal - and that's an okay position to have. You can exercise your right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues; but other then that I'm afraid there isn't much you can do.

Cycloptichorn

WE can exercise OUR right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues.

ALSO WE can avoid electing those members of Congress who are advocating the passage of laws that will further contribute to the un-Constitutional, and therefore illegal laws enacted by Congress.


As a last resort, WE can resort to this from the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
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 to 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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Hahah. Congress has the power to make the laws; The president has the power to sign the laws and make them legal. The Supreme Court can rule that the laws are unConstitutional and therefore illegal, but until they do that, the laws have the full force of the US gov't behind them.

I understand that you claim huge parts of our modern society are exactly that - unConstitutional, and therefore illegal - and that's an okay position to have. You can exercise your right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues; but other then that I'm afraid there isn't much you can do.

Cycloptichorn

WE can exercise OUR right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues.

ALSO WE can avoid electing those members of Congress who are advocating the passage of laws that will continue to contribute to the un-Constitutional, and therefore illegal laws enacted by Congress.


As a last resort, WE can resort to this from the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
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 to 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.


I would encourage you - and yes, I say you, for I want no part in your seditious behavior - to examine and carry out any and all options you think are appropriate. I do not predict you will be very successful with any of the three options you laid out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Hahah. Congress has the power to make the laws; The president has the power to sign the laws and make them legal. The Supreme Court can rule that the laws are unConstitutional and therefore illegal, but until they do that, the laws have the full force of the US gov't behind them.

I understand that you claim huge parts of our modern society are exactly that - unConstitutional, and therefore illegal - and that's an okay position to have. You can exercise your right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues; but other then that I'm afraid there isn't much you can do.

Cycloptichorn

WE can exercise OUR right to petition the Supreme Court, in order to seek redress on these issues.

ALSO WE can avoid electing those members of Congress who are advocating the passage of laws that will continue to contribute to the un-Constitutional, and therefore illegal laws enacted by Congress.


As a last resort, WE can resort to this from the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
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 to 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.


I would encourage you - and yes, I say you, for I want no part in your seditious behavior - to examine and carry out any and all options you think are appropriate. I do not predict you will be very successful with any of the three options you laid out.

Cycloptichorn

The failure of YOU and this ol' buzzard will cost YOU much more than it will cost this ol' buzzard.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 06:52 pm
If I had to guess, I would think that you have been saying this sort of thing since before my birth; and that others like you will be saying it after. And some who came before you said it...

And the rest of us chug right along.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 02:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If I had to guess, I would think that you have been saying this sort of thing since before my birth; and that others like you will be saying it after. And some who came before you said it...

And the rest of us chug right along.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it looks like you will keep on chugging right along making the same damn mistakes as your covetous predecessors, and like them keep expecting good results to follow after each failure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 09:06:44