Obama Supporters Need Not Apply

[brownbrown]

The Preamble isn't legally binding; What is your point? What is your point in referencing Article I Section 8? Barry care doesn't impose a tax, it's a penalty based on his own words.

Bold : Holy Shit! If you dont know what Art.1 Sec 8 Says then I guess its a moot point. I'm proving a point, but youre fucking LOST. ugggh... let me Barney it for you.

Article 1, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Q. IF you dont provide health care for employee's then guess what?
A. You get taxed more to provide for America.
You Can call it a penalty, Barry can call it a penalty. But its a tax/price for NOT following the rule of law. This is noting new.

Now I'm done with Barrycare. We are talking Constitution.. Stop losing focus.

So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't.

 

[javaguru]

Bold : Holy Shit! If you dont know what Art.1 Sec 8 Says then I guess its a moot point. I'm proving a point, but youre fucking LOST. ugggh... let me Barney it for you.

Article 1, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Q. IF you dont provide health care for employee's then guess what?
A. You get taxed more to provide for America.
You Can call it a penalty, Barry can call it a penalty. But its a tax/price for NOT following the rule of law. This is noting new.

Now I'm done with Barrycare. We are talking Constitution.. Stop losing focus.

So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't.

Read the Federalist Papers...:rolleseyes:


The entire point of the Constitution is to restrict how the government can control the people. I agree with the legitimate constitutional scholar I've posted, there is a 1 in 5 chance Barry care gets shot down...but the Supreme Court has ruled that someone raising wheat in their backyard for their own consumption was in violation of the of Fed law based on the Commerce Clause. The Commerce clause was created to prevent states from implementing tariffs and trade barriers between states....The Commerce Clause in modern times is being used to do things the framers never intended.

Do you think the founders imagined the Federal Government engaging in crony crapitalism...like Solyndra... or controlling health care? There were those that wanted a king and others that proposed a strong fed government but the smartest guys in the room moderated the instinct to create the document we have... I know people like you think that you really just need to elect really smart people and that is the solution to all our problems.

 

[brownbrown]

Read the Federalist Papers...:rolleseyes:


The entire point of the Constitution is to restrict how the government can control the people. I agree with the legitimate constitutional scholar I've posted, there is a 1 in 5 chance Barry care gets shot down...but the Supreme Court has ruled that someone raising wheat in their backyard for their own consumption was in violation of the of Fed law based on the Commerce Clause. The Commerce clause was created to prevent states from implementing tariffs and trade barriers between states....The Commerce Clause in modern times is being used to do things the framers never intended.

Do you think the founders imagined the Federal Government engaging in crony crapitalism...like Solyndra... or controlling health care? There were those that wanted a king and others that proposed a strong fed government but the smartest guys in the room moderated the instinct to create the document we have... I know people like you think that you really just need to elect really smart people and that is the solution to all our problems.

You CAN not Argue the point of the Constitution legitimately. You're just giving your OPINION of what the point was.

Of course you agree with your OWN definition. Although it was your OWN definition, I still entertained it and Responded to it with the Harvard Law Review article , and 12 years of Contributing to the body of Knowledge.
But you ignored answering my response....



I was Not talking about the commerce clause. I posted up the Entire part of the Constitution I was referencing. You're getting off point. The Congress shall have the power to impose taxes.. ect.



The modern world is TOTALLY different from the world the Framers lived in. And has TOTALLY different needs.

The founders didn't intend on crony capitolism. Like Halliburton, Blackwater/ XE, KBR, The Wallstreet Bailouts. <--Yea, more than Solyndra by far.

We are talking the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8, Legally binding?

Side note:
People like me? : you're making ASSumptions again. I'm a realist, and look at reality. I'm not polorized and just march in Lock step like the rest of the lemmings. ( I responed to the comment, it wasn't an invitation for you to lose focus and redirect because you cant responed to the previous statements.)

 

[javaguru]

You CAN not Argue the point of the Constitution legitimately. You're just giving your OPINION of what the point was.

Of course you agree with your OWN definition. Although it was your OWN definition, I still entertained it and Responded to it with the Harvard Law Review article , and 12 years of Contributing to the body of Knowledge.
But you ignored answering my response....



I was Not talking about the commerce clause. I posted up the Entire part of the Constitution I was referencing. You're getting off point. The Congress shall have the power to impose taxes.. ect.



The modern world is TOTALLY different from the world the Framers lived in. And has TOTALLY different needs.

The founders didn't intend on crony capitolism. Like Halliburton, Blackwater/ XE, KBR, The Wallstreet Bailouts. <--Yea, more than Solyndra by far.

We are talking the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8, Legally binding?

Side note:
People like me? : you're making ASSumptions again. I'm a realist, and look at reality. I'm not polorized and just march in Lock step like the rest of the lemmings. ( I responed to the comment, it wasn't an invitation for you to lose focus and redirect because you cant responed to the previous statements.)

Barry agrees with me on the Constitution and lamented in his lectures it wasn't a document that provided for what the Federal Government should do for you...Like the Constitution of the Soviet Union did by guaranteeing a job. It's common knowledge among legitimate legal scholars the document was designed to restrict the federal government....The Great Compromise.

There is a reason there were Amendments to The Constitution..

The Enumerated Powers...

IX and X Amendments...they trump...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"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."

The Bill of Rights were adopted because ass hats wanted unlimited authority.



It isn't my opinion the Constitution limits the federal government it's taught in every law school in the country.



I missed Barry's law review article...can you repost?

Finally, political theory isn't changed by technology. Founding principles are still sound and not only supported by science but also the data and experience. Thomas Jefferson dealt with a Muslim threat quite well. It's unfortunate for the United States that foreign policy has devolved to military force as our primary and only option to effect change.

I agree with John Quincy Adams....
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

 

[javaguru]

Read some Adam Smith brownbrown...There is a reason he is mandatory reading in college unlike Barry...
"The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in
his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed
beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer
the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to
establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard
either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which
may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the
different members of a great society with as much ease as the
hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. "
-Adam Smith

 

[javaguru]

If you want an authoritarian government...that's fine....I don't.

We can disagree but the data is on my side..you make emotional arguments and I only have data....

Another scholar on Barry...

 

[Mr. dB]

If you want an authoritarian government...that's fine....I don't.

So you won't be voting GOP then...

 

[javaguru]

So you won't be voting GOP then...

I haven't voted GOP since Bush the Elder or Dem ever for POTUS...I hope you won't be voting for Barry.He just signed a bi-partisan bill that hands over any American citizen ACCUSED of a "terrorist act" to the U.S. military for indefinite detention in gitmo...

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[brownbrown]

1. Barry agrees with me on the Constitution and lamented in his lectures it wasn't a document that provided for what the Federal Government should do for you...Like the Constitution of the Soviet Union did by guaranteeing a job. It's common knowledge among legitimate legal scholars the document was designed to restrict the federal government....The Great Compromise.

There is a reason there were Amendments to The Constitution..

The Enumerated Powers...

IX and X Amendments...they trump...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"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."

The Bill of Rights were adopted because ass hats wanted unlimited authority.



2. It isn't my opinion the Constitution limits the federal government it's taught in every law school in the country.



3.I missed Barry's law review article...can you repost?

4.Finally, political theory isn't changed by technology. Founding principles are still sound and not only supported by science but also the data and experience. Thomas Jefferson dealt with a Muslim threat quite well. It's unfortunate for the United States that foreign policy has devolved to military force as our primary and only option to effect change.

I agree with John Quincy Adams....
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

1. I'm NOT talking about the purpose of the Constitution . Is Article 1 Section 8 LEGALLY BINDING? You just can answer a single question?
2. Your OPINION is what the definition of Scholar is. And the Fucking point of the Constitution was to ESTABLISH an American government and Divide the power in said government So no one person or Group had full control. THAT was the MAIN purpose. Plain and Simple.
You said the Purpose of the Constitution was to Limit government : That was not the purpose.

3. I didnt post the article. I told you what he had published in the Harvard Law Review, and that he has contributed to the body of knowledge by teaching for 12 years. That is all. I just entertained your INCORRECT definition of Scholar .... and I proved my point with the REAL definiton of Scholar and Your incorrect one.

4. Politcal theory has changed, but that is not the point. America has changed, and what America's needs are today are different in Many ways.

 

[javaguru]

1. I'm NOT talking about the purpose of the Constitution . Is Article 1 Section 8 LEGALLY BINDING? You just can answer a single question?
2. Your OPINION is what the definition of Scholar is. And the Fucking point of the Constitution was to ESTABLISH an American government and Divide the power in said government So no one person or Group had full control. THAT was the MAIN purpose. Plain and Simple.
You said the Purpose of the Constitution was to Limit government : That was not the purpose.

3. I didnt post the article. I told you what he had published in the Harvard Law Review, and that he has contributed to the body of knowledge by teaching for 12 years. That is all. I just entertained your INCORRECT definition of Scholar .... and I proved my point with the REAL definiton of Scholar and Your incorrect one.

4. Politcal theory has changed, but that is not the point. America has changed, and what America's needs are today are different in Many ways.

You can't ignore the Bill of Rights and other Amendments...Based on your logic I should enslave me some blacks because slavery increased the "general welfare" based on the economic realities of the south during that era...

Barry was the editor of the Harvard Law Review...the editor doesn't publish. Post the article reference because you're the only person on the planet that thinks he was published in a law review article. I just posted the definition every legitimate university requires for faculty.Hell, I posted someone talking about why Barry specifically never qualified to be faculty; He's an intellectually blunt object...