Democrats Destroy Liberty

okay the "interference, obligation, restriction, and hamper." part. who are you quoting? yourself? you didn't put a source. so don't put words in quotes without any sources. also,the point of a two party government is that the two parties will interfere, restrict and hamper each others plans to a degree in order to keep either party from gaining too much power and doing things like, i don't know, create a law that allows police to requst immigration papers whenever they have probable cause. (proving that an officer doesn't have probable cause is very hard to do. ) so when you think about it, the republicans iterfere, restrict and hamper policies too. and as for the "obligation" piece, that confuses me, since when has obligation been a bad thing.

also, companies were going to cut hours anyway and if you seriously think otherwise you are quite gullible. anytime a company has a political reason (scapegoat reason) to cut hours and wages in order to gain profit, they will. companies are out for their stockholders, and the executives are generally among that demographic.

 

Blatant LIE! Democrat Leftist Propaganda!!!

If the government could do ANYTHING for general welfare why did they need a constitutional amendment tor alcohol prohibition?

If the government could do ANYTHING for general welfare why did they need a constitutional amendment establishing Women's Right to Vote?

Why the need to get amendments for such necessities for the general welfare?

The truth is the Constitution was not so interpreted until AFTER Democrat FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine!"

 

I give you the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

and

Every time a president vetoes a bill, or Congress overrides a veto, or the Courts overturns a legislative or executive action is is a restraint on government.

It is the way our government is supposed to work.

Want to go back to 1789?

Ready to give back everything except the original thirteen states? I don't see any specific power to add states to the union.
Ready to tear down the interstate highway system?
Destroy the FAA, FCC, and a dozen other agencies that regulate things that didn't exist in 1789?
Ready to do away with the FED (I know you are) and go back to the depressions we had every 10 years prior to 1933?

The problem with "Libertarians" is that they are not only unreasonable, they are unreasoning.

Guess what? It wasn't better then.

A 40 year life expectancy is not better.
A third of all women dying in child birth is not better.
20% of all children dying before their 2nd birthday is not better.
Being put in prison for not being able to pay a debt is not better.

I know you don't agree but all that makes you is WRONG.

 

Ah go back and READ the OP ah post 1. You will see the dictionary definition cited.

 

And how well did that go over? What were his personal regrets? You give me an incident without the consequences of the context.

No. Those are checks and balances and they are rare. The power of the federal government has expanded over and over again until it is a monstrosity. It is difficult to have checks and balances in a two party tag team.

I'd rather have no government period. I'm an anarchist. So...I'd rather go back to tipis and buffalo hunts.

Better is a subjective term. It has no defined parameters, has no methods of benchmark. It is, in the immortal words of The Dude, just like...your opinion, man.

Uh huh. Sure, dude. *cleans fingernails*

 

Hamilton's Federalist #83 Paragraph 7 (bold for Emphasis)

Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning. This will be best done by examples. The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. ​

Again, Hamilton believed in ENUMERATED powers "because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." Hamilton's words not mine... Again, even according to Hamilton anything the federal government did MUST have a corresponding enumerated POWER. The General Welfare clause is not a specific power. If it were there would be no need for specific powers to provide for the Common Defense.

 

Showing that he said one thing at one time does nothing to negate the fact that, at another time, he said the following.

You're preaching to the choir. I already believe that the constitution is an enumeration of powers and that the general welfare clause is not one of them. I said that a statement of a founding father could be found to show practically anything to be constitutional. Have you not been paying attention to the laws that congress has been writing for the past hundred years? Have you not noticed that the SC nearly always finds a way to uphold what the president signs? It doesn't matter how many other Hamilton quotes you dig up, or how many little rolling eyes you use, you can't unwrite all the crap the guy wrote.

 

Maybe it will, with time.

 

Your Hamilton quote was from 1791, after the Constitution was already ratified. My Hamilton quote was from 1788 during the ratification arguments. Either your Hamilton quote was taken out-of-context, and he was refereeing to unlimited appropriations for very LIMITED powers, or he became corrupt by the process as have so many of today's politicians. In any case, the Constitution was sold as the outline for a very limited government of enumerated powers. That is what it was meant to be by yes, all the Founders at the time of the founding.

 

No one is above God/allah. Leave religion out of politics.

 

Explain Jefferson's Louisianna Purchase. It should be unconstitutional. Actions speak louder than words.

 

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm
Jefferson. A big supporter in voice against limited gov't, until it wasn't such a good idea.

 

Article 1, Section 8 (in part)
The Congress shall have power...

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​

The Federal government also has power to enact treaties. President negotiates the treaties and Congress ratifies such treaties. Treaties are written agreements, in this case for the sale of property. How was the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional when the Federal government has the ability to make treaties (written agreements), and has the ability to buy property?

 

The title of this thread is "Democrats Destroy Liberty." So far no one, and I mean no one has made the case Democrats in any way preserve or protect Liberty... He have just elected many Democrats to office. This is a sad time for America.

 

So from which state or states was the Louisiana territory purchased?

No it does not, because only the approval of the Senate is required for treaties; wherefore no treaty by itself is sufficient to authorize the purchase of property, since the power to raise revenue is reserved to Congress. And since the enclave clause you quoted above grants no authority for the purchase of foreign property, you have provided no constitutional justification for the LP.

 

I stand correct. Yes the SENATE ratifies written agreements between countries. The Constitution does not prohibit the sale of property in such agreements. The Federal government has the power to buy land according to the Constitution, and make agreements with foreign countries. The two powers were exercised to make the Louisiana Purchase. The government has NO authority to control the healthcare industry and FORCE people to buy products and services they do not want, yet Democrats are doing it anyway.

 

Not nearly good enough, obviously. That power has to be enumerated or implied by a power that is enumerated, and you have cited no such enumeration.

Yes, from states. There is no enumerated power to buy land from foreign countries, wherefore any such power must be implied by a power which IS enumerated; so since the enclave clause obviously doesn't cut it in that regard, which enumerated power do you have in mind?

 

While I agree that Democrats destroy liberty, I can't help but suspect that, since your focus is directed so sharply to Democrats, you must think that Republicans do not destroy liberty, or that they don't destroy it as much as democrats. If that's what you think, I'm saddened, and I wish you would wake up and help us to rid ourselves of the evil two headed monster that has taken control of all the states. Also, the vigor with which you defend the constitution and your interpretation of it, and your conception of what those who wrote it believed leads me to suspect that the massive monster of a unilaterally coercive union that they created is the best thing to grace the planet since sunshine. I'd like to suggest that, if ever there was a problematic love for big government, that attitude embodies it.

 

And this is why Republicans frustrate me more than Democrats. They like to believe they are small government, they will fight against Democrats when they try to push forward a social program with the hue and cry of "big government" then...they turn around en masse and vote for the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Surveillance does not seem to be an issue for Republicans.

This is why I try not to concern myself so much with what they're thinking anymore.

 

Oh, but they'll deny to the grave that laws like those are unconstitutional, as long as you tell them you'll only use it on ebil Muslims and liberals.

 

What I am frustrated with, is that as much as we agree and complain, we can not seem to get anything started to fight this evil. It's like we are afraid to lose something, perhaps because evil is good at taking credit for everything that's good? or perhaps we fear reprocussions? I am not sure. or perhaps because we think we are doing better than the other one complaining?

 

I don't know what else to do, other than try to get and keep the young people more inclined toward liberty. I'm happy to get behind any plan anyone has to shrink the federal government or lessen the power of the two parties. I support that republican guy's plan to cut $10 trillion dollars of wasteful spending. I'd be happy to get behind a good green party candidate, as long as they agree to work on civil liberties and foreign policy first, and then after all the undoing is done we can talk about whatever welfare programs they think they need. If you think you can bring people together, fine, do it. All these people aren't going to snap out of their party stupor over night though. Most of them will probably have to die off before we can really undo a lot of the damage they've done.

 

Now it's just a matter of getting Libertarian and Green leaders into the same room.

 

I suppose the Federal government has no power to BUY land in foreign countries for US embassies either huh? The Louisiana Purchase was a combined process using several Enumerated Powers. Obamacare uses NO Enumerated Powers. The buying of the Louisiana Purchase was destructive to no one's Individual Liberty. Obamacare created the precedent that the Federal government has the POWER to demand and FORCE individuals to buy products and services from private companies they don't want. Obamacare destroys liberty, and not one Republican voted for it.

 

Not under the enclave clause it doesn't.

So when are you going to cite one that allows for the purchase of foreign property?