Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
FSA > General > Political Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Nickel
  • From:USA

Date Posted:27-08-2018 12:20:46Copy HTML

I don’t bother read anything that has Trump in the title.

He will probably win a second term.


Seems to me voters are unhappy with the lesser of two evils, figuring out which is which, and have just decided to simply sway back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans every eight years and hope for something in the middle to emerge overall that doesn’t ruin the country.  Being ever vigilant is too hard.


What goes around, comes around.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:08-09-2018 03:18:24Copy HTML

Our Civil War changed that.   States can join the union, but they can’t leave unless they win the fight. Didn’t you know?


Not at all. You have it incorrect. the CONSTITUTION, which has not been modified on that end lists the extent and limits of feral power and authority.

ENUMERATED POWERS.

Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:08-09-2018 07:22:48Copy HTML

And I'll explain it to you-- the Electoral College has long outlived its usefulness and there is no legitimate reason to keep it. And there is nothing in us being a republic that requires we keep it, either. What a specious argument that they would decide all the issues for the rest of the country. One man, one vote to pick the President doesn't change what the legislature does at all. There is no reason underpopulated states should have MORE representation in the executive as well as the legislative branch. None.


Once again you reveal you do NOT understand as there is a PROSCRIBED way and the ELECTORAL COLLEGE is that way. It is NOT changed simply because you, and those like you, who are restless juveniles, simply want it to be changed just because you don't like something.There IS a reason that smaller states have a proportional representation in the voting, as two maybe three states might equal one big state, thereby equalizing that vote.


Proscribed means forbidden.  What are you trying to say?

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:09-09-2018 12:12:21Copy HTML

 

Not at all. You have it incorrect. the CONSTITUTION, which has not been modified on that end lists the extent and limits of feral power and authority.

ENUMERATED POWERS.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Government. It formed a more perfect union, NOT a new union, as is evidenced by the fact that it refers to the United States, the name given the new nation by the Articles of Confederation.


Specifically, the Articles of Confederation state that this is a perpetual union. By definition a perpetual union, or clock, cannot be ended or stopped. Once ratified by the requisite nine states, the other states were free NOT to ratify it and form, at that point, their own states. However, once ratified, they fell under the Perpetual Union and could NOT thereafter withdraw.


Your claim that the feds are limited to enumerated powers only is clearly disproven both by history and the the facts of debate and ratification of the Constituiton, at which time it was already stated that the Court would be ultimate decider of whether a law was Constituitonal or not, NOT only the enumerated powers. It was suggested in the debates at one point that the SCOTUS be given a veto on par with the presidents, and that suggest was specifically rejected on the grounds that the court, not the enumerated words of the Constituiton, would be the ultimate arbiter of the constiutiotnality of any given law.


You are wrong on this issue, we've discussed it before, you are welcome to provide any factual evidence that secession was considered legal by the courts PRIOR to the actual act, you won't have any, neither you nor freebird, your perpetual idiot brother on this issue, have a LEG to stand on.

You should actually read the debates and the Federalist papers before you presume to speak on these matters.

~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:09-09-2018 02:35:34Copy HTML

 

Not at all. You have it incorrect. the CONSTITUTION, which has not been modified on that end lists the extent and limits of feral power and authority.

ENUMERATED POWERS.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Government. It formed a more perfect union, NOT a new union, as is evidenced by the fact that it refers to the United States, the name given the new nation by the Articles of Confederation.


Specifically, the Articles of Confederation state that this is a perpetual union. By definition a perpetual union, or clock, cannot be ended or stopped. Once ratified by the requisite nine states, the other states were free NOT to ratify it and form, at that point, their own states. However, once ratified, they fell under the Perpetual Union and could NOT thereafter withdraw.


Your claim that the feds are limited to enumerated powers only is clearly disproven both by history and the the facts of debate and ratification of the Constituiton, at which time it was already stated that the Court would be ultimate decider of whether a law was Constituitonal or not, NOT only the enumerated powers. It was suggested in the debates at one point that the SCOTUS be given a veto on par with the presidents, and that suggest was specifically rejected on the grounds that the court, not the enumerated words of the Constituiton, would be the ultimate arbiter of the constiutiotnality of any given law.


You are wrong on this issue, we've discussed it before, you are welcome to provide any factual evidence that secession was considered legal by the courts PRIOR to the actual act, you won't have any, neither you nor freebird, your perpetual idiot brother on this issue, have a LEG to stand on.

You should actually read the debates and the Federalist papers before you presume to speak on these matters.


Your errors

1- The Constitution established the Court to uphold the Constition. This means that LAWS are measured AGAINST the Constitution to see whether or not that particular law being scrutinized is CONSISTENT with the Constitution, which INCLUDES the ENUMERATED POWERS.

2-The ORIGIN of this country was established in secession, AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND, although it specifically refers to the Monarch in the document, the Declaration of Independence, one of our founding documents, CLEARLY articulates rights of a people to secede, in THAT case it was about colonies breaking away, but the overriding principle was that of the right of people's to break free. So re-read THAT documebnt.

mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:09-09-2018 07:49:57Copy HTML

 

The DOI is a statement of principle, not law. The DOI also refers to a creator, but the Constitution clearly forbids government establishing a church, so what the DOI says when it conflicts with the constitution is meaningless since we are governed under the Constituiton, not the DOI.

Second, there is a difference between secession and revolt. None of the Founders thought they had a legal right to secede from Britain, it was, in their view, a natural right. What you and others are trying to claim is that it was LEGAL for the south to secede, no, it wasn't. You are trying to compare a revolt, which by definition is against the legal authority, with a legal process by which one part of a country leaves another.

Apples and oranges. Sorry, you lose.

1- The Constitution established the Court to uphold the Constition. This means that LAWS are measured AGAINST the Constitution to see whether or not that particular law being scrutinized is CONSISTENT with the Constitution, which INCLUDES the ENUMERATED POWERS.

Includes, but not limited to. If it were limited to then SCOTUS couldn't uphold various laws which occur under the interstate commerce law. The question of implied versus enumerated powers is one which the court has had to decide many times in our history. But NO where was it ever stated, either in Constitution proper or in jurisprudence, that ONLY those powers specifically listed could be exercised.

I would ask you at this point to try and differentiate between what you want to be true, and what actually is. Because you're not doing a very good job at it so far.

~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:09-09-2018 09:09:07Copy HTML

 

The DOI is a statement of principle, not law. The DOI also refers to a creator, but the Constitution clearly forbids government establishing a church, so what the DOI says when it conflicts with the constitution is meaningless since we are governed under the Constituiton, not the DOI.

Second, there is a difference between secession and revolt. None of the Founders thought they had a legal right to secede from Britain, it was, in their view, a natural right. What you and others are trying to claim is that it was LEGAL for the south to secede, no, it wasn't. You are trying to compare a revolt, which by definition is against the legal authority, with a legal process by which one part of a country leaves another.

Apples and oranges. Sorry, you lose.

1- The Constitution established the Court to uphold the Constition. This means that LAWS are measured AGAINST the Constitution to see whether or not that particular law being scrutinized is CONSISTENT with the Constitution, which INCLUDES the ENUMERATED POWERS.

Includes, but not limited to. If it were limited to then SCOTUS couldn't uphold various laws which occur under the interstate commerce law. The question of implied versus enumerated powers is one which the court has had to decide many times in our history. But NO where was it ever stated, either in Constitution proper or in jurisprudence, that ONLY those powers specifically listed could be exercised.

I would ask you at this point to try and differentiate between what you want to be true, and what actually is. Because you're not doing a very good job at it so far.


You aren't as dumb as your words indicate, are you?

The Declaration of Independence IS our founding document in thought AND principle. It established our independent identity apart from England . The Articles of Confederation AND the Constitution was a codification of the allinace between the sovereign statesin a unified purpose. it was always understood that any of the sovreign states could always pull out as freely as they entered into it. a far as the constituion and religion, The FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees the right to freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.
It is NOT a freedom FROM religion and the AMENDMEMNT guarantees the right to express
that religion on private AND public grounds.


As far as the Supreme court goes, it's job is to measure the laws and situations that come before it AGAINST the words in the Constitution, and when there is a conflict, the words of THE CONSTITUTION prevail. Otherwise, what YOU are saying is that those who WROTE the document of the CONSTITION didn't know what they were writing.

mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:09-09-2018 09:19:02Copy HTML

 

The Declaration of Independence IS our founding document in thought AND principle. It established our independent identity apart from England .

Uh, no, it established nothing. If it had established our identity, we wouldn't have needed to fight the Revolutionary War.

You need to distinguish between what you want to be true, versus what actually is true. The DOI is absolutely meaningless, because when it was written, we were still ruled by England, and when we achieved our independence, it was under the articles and then the constitution. The DOI is a nice set of sentiments, but it has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY in this nation, and NEVER has.

You might as well claim that any other writing at the time is equivalent to the law. You'd be as wrong then as you are now.

Say it till it sinks in, wale: the DOI is NOT a governing document, it has NO legal authority, and it NEVER has. YOu cannot cite the DOI to claim that secession was legal.

Why do you think it is called the Revolutionary War? Because it was a REVOLT, against the will of the governing authority, at that time, England.

You remain in error.

As far as the Supreme court goes, it's job is to measure the laws and situations that come before it AGAINST the words in the Constitution, and when there is a conflict, the words of THE CONSTITUTION prevail. Otherwise, what YOU are saying is that those who WROTE the document of the CONSTITION didn't know what they were writing.


There was no 100% agreement amongst the Founders. If there were, then why would there have been constitutional debates in the Constitutional Convention? Think about it. Obviously people weren't in 100% agreement. A lot of the differences between them were papered over, to get their votes, with the understanding that the ultimate rulings on the phraseology would come later.

The US Constitution was created as a framework on which to build the federal government, but the Framers were deliberately vague in some areas to allow flexibility. It would be impossible for them to foresee all possible conditions future generations of officials might face, or to make allowances for changes in society or to the Constitution itself, let alone dictate solutions to conflicts. For this reason, it's not always possible to intuit the Framers' intentions.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_Constitution_so_vague_legal_scholars_and_US_Supreme_Court_justices_sometimes_cite_The_Federalist_Papers_in_their_writing


Why study the Constitution? It's old and doesn't …

www.abajournal.com/news/article/why_study_the_constitution_its_old...

“The framers of the Constitution cannot communicate with us regarding issues that they deliberately left vague, probably because they couldn’t agree on how or whether the text of the Constitution resolved the issues.



~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:10-09-2018 01:46:50Copy HTML

 

The Declaration of Independence IS our founding document in thought AND principle. It established our independent identity apart from England .

Uh, no, it established nothing. If it had established our identity, we wouldn't have needed to fight the Revolutionary War.

You need to distinguish between what you want to be true, versus what actually is true. The DOI is absolutely meaningless, because when it was written, we were still ruled by England, and when we achieved our independence, it was under the articles and then the constitution. The DOI is a nice set of sentiments, but it has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY in this nation, and NEVER has.

You might as well claim that any other writing at the time is equivalent to the law. You'd be as wrong then as you are now.

Say it till it sinks in, wale: the DOI is NOT a governing document, it has NO legal authority, and it NEVER has. YOu cannot cite the DOI to claim that secession was legal.

Why do you think it is called the Revolutionary War? Because it was a REVOLT, against the will of the governing authority, at that time, England.

You remain in error.

As far as the Supreme court goes, it's job is to measure the laws and situations that come before it AGAINST the words in the Constitution, and when there is a conflict, the words of THE CONSTITUTION prevail. Otherwise, what YOU are saying is that those who WROTE the document of the CONSTITION didn't know what they were writing.


There was no 100% agreement amongst the Founders. If there were, then why would there have been constitutional debates in the Constitutional Convention? Think about it. Obviously people weren't in 100% agreement. A lot of the differences between them were papered over, to get their votes, with the understanding that the ultimate rulings on the phraseology would come later.

The US Constitution was created as a framework on which to build the federal government, but the Framers were deliberately vague in some areas to allow flexibility. It would be impossible for them to foresee all possible conditions future generations of officials might face, or to make allowances for changes in society or to the Constitution itself, let alone dictate solutions to conflicts. For this reason, it's not always possible to intuit the Framers' intentions.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_Constitution_so_vague_legal_scholars_and_US_Supreme_Court_justices_sometimes_cite_The_Federalist_Papers_in_their_writing


Why study the Constitution? It's old and doesn't …

www.abajournal.com/news/article/why_study_the_constitution_its_old...

“The framers of the Constitution cannot communicate with us regarding issues that they deliberately left vague, probably because they couldn’t agree on how or whether the text of the Constitution resolved the issues.




it's time you go bck to the educational institutions that gave you diplomas and ask for your money back!!!!!  When a person says 'uhhhhhhhh' at the begiinig of a spoken sentence, it sounds dumb.
For a person to go out of their way to write it into a sentence, mimicking the mispeak of our uneducated youth, it reveals shallow intellect.

repetition of your error above , even verbatin will not establish that error at all. no one is claiming any other writing is law BUT in the chronology, The DECLARATION came first and is MOST important BECAUSE it spells out quite a bit: It reveals the thinking at the time. The Lee Resoulution/The Resolution for Independence articulates quite well how they viewed the union at the time:


Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

ALL the references REFER to the multiple, not the singular.

The last part is just NONSENSE as you are then saying that the writers AND the language IN the Constitution were undecipherable by the authors. ABSURD

mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 12:01:32Copy HTML

Again, it is meaningless, wale. It is a set of sentiments, no more. A declaration of principles, that's great, but nothing more. So citing it to prove a point of legality--such as whether secession was legal or not--is absurd. Why you people insist that secession was legal is beyond me. The colonies DID revolt against England, were well aware of what they were doing, hence Franklin's comment, "Gentlemen, if we do not hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately." He undersetood--they all did--that they were committing treason. But you know what? Successful traitors--which is how they ended up being--are called heroes and Founders. UNsuccessful traitors, such as your Confederate forbears, are called, well, traitors.
~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 01:22:08Copy HTML

Again, it is meaningless, wale. It is a set of sentiments, no more. A declaration of principles, that's great, but nothing more. So citing it to prove a point of legality--such as whether secession was legal or not--is absurd. Why you people insist that secession was legal is beyond me. The colonies DID revolt against England, were well aware of what they were doing, hence Franklin's comment, "Gentlemen, if we do not hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately." He undersetood--they all did--that they were committing treason. But you know what? Successful traitors--which is how they ended up being--are called heroes and Founders. UNsuccessful traitors, such as your Confederate forbears, are called, well, traitors.


The Confedracy of the South were not my heroes BUT they operated on a PRINCIPLE at our founding that THESE COLONIES entered into a union freely with the understanding that they could leave freely as well at their OWN choosing as is the right of a sovreign stae, which each state was as they entered into the union. A shame you do not understand that.


As far as citing the Declaration, AND the proposals going in to it, demonstrate CLEARLY the thinking of the time, as does the Artiicles of CONFEDERATION as well, which apparently is lost in your incorrect conclusions.


mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 03:05:50Copy HTML

 THESE COLONIES entered into a union freely with the understanding that they could leave freely as well at their OWN choosing as is the right of a sovreign stae,


These colonies entered into the Articles of Confederation, which SPECIFICALLY described the Union as perpetual. How could they have the understanding that they were free to leave when they signed the Articles? Were they ignorant that they didn't understand the meaning of the word "perpetual", as in, 


Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
The Perpetual Union is a feature of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which established the United States of America as a national entity. Under modern American constitutional law, this concept means that U.S. states are not permitted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and withdraw from the Union.

Did you want to suggest that the southern states that signed those articles WERE in fact ignorant?

~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 02:34:38Copy HTML

 THESE COLONIES entered into a union freely with the understanding that they could leave freely as well at their OWN choosing as is the right of a sovreign stae,


These colonies entered into the Articles of Confederation, which SPECIFICALLY described the Union as perpetual. How could they have the understanding that they were free to leave when they signed the Articles? Were they ignorant that they didn't understand the meaning of the word "perpetual", as in, 


Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
The Perpetual Union is a feature of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which established the United States of America as a national entity. Under modern American constitutional law, this concept means that U.S. states are not permitted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and withdraw from the Union.

Did you want to suggest that the southern states that signed those articles WERE in fact ignorant?


"...The Declaration of Independence states:

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 of 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.[2]

Historian Pauline Maier argues that this narrative asserted "... the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776"; and notes that Thomas Jefferson's language incorporated ideas explained at length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers including John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke and other English and Scottish commentators, all of whom had contributed to the development of the Whig tradition in eighteenth-century Britain.[2]

The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them;[3] then they may defend themselves.[4][5] This reasoning was not original to the Declaration, but can be found in many prior political writings: Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690); the Fairfax Resolves of 1774; Jefferson's own Summary View of the Rights of British America; the first Constitution of Virginia, which was enacted five days prior to the Declaration.[6] and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776):

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms ("of Government", editor's addition) to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing ... a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#The_American_Revolution

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #73
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 03:35:52Copy HTML

What's the matter, wale?  Apparently you don't have any original thoughts of your own or the brain power to craft your own replies to Mickey's posts.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #74
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 04:28:59Copy HTML

What's the matter, wale?  Apparently you don't have any original thoughts of your own or the brain power to craft your own replies to Mickey's posts.


Mickey needs   backup to PREVIUOS comments Ive made. You ought to stop your hissy fits and straightem out. this discussion is WAAAY over your head. it involves thought and history.

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #75
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 04:56:07Copy HTML

Thought and history, wale, are both way above your ability to execute and grasp.  LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #76
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 05:02:25Copy HTML

Thought and history, wale, are both way above your ability to execute and grasp.  LOL


Sorry boguspumped BUTT you haven't even risen to the level beyond crayons yet LOL

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #77
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:11-09-2018 05:42:11Copy HTML

Obviously, wale, the meanings and usage of simple English words are beyond your ability.  But, what can one expect from someone who can't even get a name right.  LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #78
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 12:16:13Copy HTML

Obviously, wale, the meanings and usage of simple English words are beyond your ability.  But, what can one expect from someone who can't even get a name right.  LOL


You'll have to come OUT of your dysfunctional and delusional coccoon before you can properly asses AMYTHING. LOL

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #79
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 12:45:56Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #80
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 07:17:02Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


You are under the mistaken idea that your dysfunctional and distorted perspective is on an eqaual footing with normal observationa. LOL

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #81
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 08:07:30Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #82
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 08:22:20Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


Your juvenile response doesn't work. LOL

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #83
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 08:28:34Copy HTML

I don't know about that, wale.  Judging by your response, it looks like it worked a treat.

LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #84
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:12-09-2018 10:37:01Copy HTML

I don't know about that, wale.  Judging by your response, it looks like it worked a treat.

LOL


No, but apparently you don't mind looking stupid everytime YOU post. LOL

Doe_Eyes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #85
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:13-09-2018 05:03:06Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


Your juvenile response doesn't work. LOL


You call someone else "juvenile" when you do nothing but reference his sexual orientation with each and every post you make, by skewing his nickname to suit your bigoted purpose.  What are you, in 4th grade?  



I, for one, can't wait for trump to leave office, however it is or what it takes, so that pathetic weasel bigots like you are shoved head first back into the cracks and crevices of society.  You want to hate?  You'll have to do it in private with like minded assholes, because your type of bigotry won't be tolerated by polite society any more.



  

There is a great deal to be outraged right now: Russian interference, ICE raids in hospital rooms, Eroding LGBTQ rights, Vanishing environmental protections, Puerto Rico still in shambles, Flint still without clean water, unparalleled gun homicides, a compromised Evangelical Church, raising hate crimes, the sabotaging on the Affordable Care Act. - John Pavlovitz [B]Their blood is on YOUR hands.[/B]
mickeyrat Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #86
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:13-09-2018 11:27:16Copy HTML

 THESE COLONIES entered into a union freely with the understanding that they could leave freely as well at their OWN choosing as is the right of a sovreign stae,


These colonies entered into the Articles of Confederation, which SPECIFICALLY described the Union as perpetual. How could they have the understanding that they were free to leave when they signed the Articles? Were they ignorant that they didn't understand the meaning of the word "perpetual", as in, 


Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union
The Perpetual Union is a feature of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which established the United States of America as a national entity. Under modern American constitutional law, this concept means that U.S. states are not permitted to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and withdraw from the Union.

Did you want to suggest that the southern states that signed those articles WERE in fact ignorant?


"...The Declaration of Independence states:

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 of 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.[2]

Historian Pauline Maier argues that this narrative asserted "... the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776"; and notes that Thomas Jefferson's language incorporated ideas explained at length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers including John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke and other English and Scottish commentators, all of whom had contributed to the development of the Whig tradition in eighteenth-century Britain.[2]

The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them;[3] then they may defend themselves.[4][5] This reasoning was not original to the Declaration, but can be found in many prior political writings: Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690); the Fairfax Resolves of 1774; Jefferson's own Summary View of the Rights of British America; the first Constitution of Virginia, which was enacted five days prior to the Declaration.[6] and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776):

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms ("of Government", editor's addition) to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing ... a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#The_American_Revolution


Again, you moron,  you are not citing ANYTHING legal. I did. The Article of Confederation was a legal document, wale, ratified by all the states, and setting forth the conditions--including perpetuity--under which those states entered that union. As I said before, you could cite a hundred writings from a hundred people, and they would all be meaningless, because none of them, unlike the Articles, which does, and unlike the constitution, which done--none of your writers have the force of law behind them.


Again I ask  you. Were the southerners who signed and ratified the Articles of Confederation so ill educated that they did not understand the meaning of the word "Perpetual"?

~Oh, I wish it would rain.~ --The Temptations
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #87
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:14-09-2018 01:23:30Copy HTML

 

Not at all. You have it incorrect. the CONSTITUTION, which has not been modified on that end lists the extent and limits of feral power and authority.

ENUMERATED POWERS.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Government. It formed a more perfect union, NOT a new union, as is evidenced by the fact that it refers to the United States, the name given the new nation by the Articles of Confederation.


Specifically, the Articles of Confederation state that this is a perpetual union. By definition a perpetual union, or clock, cannot be ended or stopped. Once ratified by the requisite nine states, the other states were free NOT to ratify it and form, at that point, their own states. However, once ratified, they fell under the Perpetual Union and could NOT thereafter withdraw.


Your claim that the feds are limited to enumerated powers only is clearly disproven both by history and the the facts of debate and ratification of the Constituiton, at which time it was already stated that the Court would be ultimate decider of whether a law was Constituitonal or not, NOT only the enumerated powers. It was suggested in the debates at one point that the SCOTUS be given a veto on par with the presidents, and that suggest was specifically rejected on the grounds that the court, not the enumerated words of the Constituiton, would be the ultimate arbiter of the constiutiotnality of any given law.


You are wrong on this issue, we've discussed it before, you are welcome to provide any factual evidence that secession was considered legal by the courts PRIOR to the actual act, you won't have any, neither you nor freebird, your perpetual idiot brother on this issue, have a LEG to stand on.

You should actually read the debates and the Federalist papers before you presume to speak on these matters.


Now you are going in circles with your incorrect assumptions,. The UNITED STAETES were just that, "united STATES"- plural. THAT was the thinking of those at the time. As stated before, many would not enter into the union unless they could leave as freely as they came in. Look it up.

Deciding whether a law was Constitutional involved measuring the legislation, act or order AGAINST the words IN the Constitution.

Self certifying yoursef in your errors doesn't bring you any closer to the right answer.

I have read the debates IN the Federalist papers and Anti -Federalist papaers.

maybe you should also, as well as other writings concurrent and supplemental to the times.

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #88
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:14-09-2018 01:25:20Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


Your juvenile response doesn't work. LOL


You call someone else "juvenile" when you do nothing but reference his sexual orientation with each and every post you make, by skewing his nickname to suit your bigoted purpose.  What are you, in 4th grade?  



I, for one, can't wait for trump to leave office, however it is or what it takes, so that pathetic weasel bigots like you are shoved head first back into the cracks and crevices of society.  You want to hate?  You'll have to do it in private with like minded assholes, because your type of bigotry won't be tolerated by polite society any more.



  


Being in contradiction to your erronoeus ideas and conclusions does NOT make one bigoted duckeyes.

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #89
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:14-09-2018 02:15:20Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


Your juvenile response doesn't work. LOL


You call someone else "juvenile" when you do nothing but reference his sexual orientation with each and every post you make, by skewing his nickname to suit your bigoted purpose.  What are you, in 4th grade? 

...



I'm not entirely sure that he got past the 3rd grade.  LOL

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #90
  • From:USA

Re:Just waiting for Trump to leave office.

Date Posted:14-09-2018 02:24:34Copy HTML

Right back at you, baby.  LOL


Your juvenile response doesn't work. LOL


You call someone else "juvenile" when you do nothing but reference his sexual orientation with each and every post you make, by skewing his nickname to suit your bigoted purpose.  What are you, in 4th grade? 

...



I'm not entirely sure that he got past the 3rd grade.  LOL


BUTT you are not entirely sure whether YOU are a man or a woman, so if you can't get past that correctly, how can you make conclusions beyond that?

Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.