(09-29-2015 10:48 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:06 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 09:47 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:41 PM)Policiious Wrote:  So while US taxpayers dole out billions to support the over 10000 service personel in Italy, over 50000 in Germany and over 40000 in Japan; all these nations have universal healthcare and either Free or heavily taxpayer subsidized collegiate education for those who meet the academic requirements. When there is no money to pay for either of these for American taxpayers.

Reduce troop levels overseas and there would be $ for funding healthcare, VA benefits, education and Deficit Reduction.

Eliminate all military spending and you still can't afford the above. Plus, unlike "education" and "healthcare," the common defense is mentioned in the Constitution.

Umm. Does promote the general welfare ring a bell

Ummm, the Constitution is written to limit the power of government (federal) very specifically. To claim the general welfare language means "and whatever else we want to do" is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

And, again, Poli's math does not add up.

Are you suggesting that this clause is specifically worded?

"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"

The constitution was not a specifically worded document. There are some specifics but the beauty of the document was that some sections were intentionally vague. Despite your obvious legal credentials the Supreme Court has determined that to be true.

This is absolutely correct. The Founders certainly knew that American society would evolve and left certain portions vague to allow the "people" the ability to interpret. The specifics in the Constitution are there because they believed that regardless of societal changes this was something the federal government had to do.

(09-29-2015 10:48 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The constitution was not a specifically worded document. There are some specifics but the beauty of the document was that some sections were intentionally vague.

That's the reason why slavery ultimately was abolished.

The original document didn't really say anything on the subject, with the exception of the three-fifths rule that originally counted as part of the electoral college. This was done likely because half the original states wouldn't have ratified it if it had specifically addressed slavery in one way or the other. So, leave it as a blank slate and let the future society interpret it, which it did, and now slavery's gone for good.

(09-30-2015 01:02 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 10:48 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:06 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 09:47 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Eliminate all military spending and you still can't afford the above. Plus, unlike "education" and "healthcare," the common defense is mentioned in the Constitution.

Umm. Does promote the general welfare ring a bell

Ummm, the Constitution is written to limit the power of government (federal) very specifically. To claim the general welfare language means "and whatever else we want to do" is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

And, again, Poli's math does not add up.

Are you suggesting that this clause is specifically worded?

"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"

The constitution was not a specifically worded document. There are some specifics but the beauty of the document was that some sections were intentionally vague. Despite your obvious legal credentials the Supreme Court has determined that to be true.

This is absolutely correct. The Founders certainly knew that American society would evolve and left certain portions vague to allow the "people" the ability to interpret. The specifics in the Constitution are there because they believed that regardless of societal changes this was something the federal government had to do.

I'm confused. Are we including the Bill of Rights in this discussion? The Bill of Rights specifically says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, we see that assaulted on a regular basis.

What is the use of a vague founding document? That flies in the face of all logic. Those that call it a living document are those that don't like what it says and those who wish to generally ignore it.

(09-30-2015 04:22 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:02 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 10:48 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:06 PM)BobL Wrote:  Umm. Does promote the general welfare ring a bell

Ummm, the Constitution is written to limit the power of government (federal) very specifically. To claim the general welfare language means "and whatever else we want to do" is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

And, again, Poli's math does not add up.

Are you suggesting that this clause is specifically worded?

"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"

The constitution was not a specifically worded document. There are some specifics but the beauty of the document was that some sections were intentionally vague. Despite your obvious legal credentials the Supreme Court has determined that to be true.

This is absolutely correct. The Founders certainly knew that American society would evolve and left certain portions vague to allow the "people" the ability to interpret. The specifics in the Constitution are there because they believed that regardless of societal changes this was something the federal government had to do.

I'm confused. Are we including the Bill of Rights in this discussion? The Bill of Rights specifically says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, we see that assaulted on a regular basis.

What is the use of a vague founding document? That flies in the face of all logic. Those that call it a living document are those that don't like what it says and those who wish to generally ignore it.

He's not talking about the Bill of Rights because, as you say, most of the stuff in the Bill of Rights is specific. Plus, the Bill of Rights were not part of the original Constitution. They were added 3 years later because the Constitution did not specifically mention things such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Amendments to the Constitution are what make up most of the specificity of it, rather than the main part of it.

He's talking about the original Constitution in which most of what it outlined is vague enough to be fitted to the needs of the present day.

(09-30-2015 12:45 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Whether you believe Health Education & Welfare issues should be left to the states; at least 2 if not 3 20th Century Republican Presidents would disagree with you being that Warren Harding was the first to propose a Department of HEW in 1923, Dwight Eisenhower was the first to enact it in his Reorganization Plan #1 of 1953 and Ronald Reagan being the first President to name a Director to the Department of Education in spring 1980.

the Federal Government has long had a National role in ensuring a more "level playing field" among the states in regard to Health & Educational Access and historically Republicans have interpreted the Constitution that way in that they were instrumental in enacting the 2 Federal Departments that address these issues. Some "Modern" Republicans have strayed from that Constitutional Interpretation.

I'll note now that you agree with Republicans, I guess? I'm not sure what two or three Republican presidents thought on a couple of issues matters in this context.

The federal government has overstepped the intent of the founders with respect to your level playing field argument, and in fact, results have demonstrated they've failed. Bureaucrats in Washington are not better suited to determine the educational needs of Oregon, for example, than people in Portland.

(09-30-2015 04:22 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:02 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 10:48 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:05 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 07:06 PM)BobL Wrote:  Umm. Does promote the general welfare ring a bell

Ummm, the Constitution is written to limit the power of government (federal) very specifically. To claim the general welfare language means "and whatever else we want to do" is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

And, again, Poli's math does not add up.

Are you suggesting that this clause is specifically worded?

"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"

The constitution was not a specifically worded document. There are some specifics but the beauty of the document was that some sections were intentionally vague. Despite your obvious legal credentials the Supreme Court has determined that to be true.

This is absolutely correct. The Founders certainly knew that American society would evolve and left certain portions vague to allow the "people" the ability to interpret. The specifics in the Constitution are there because they believed that regardless of societal changes this was something the federal government had to do.

I'm confused. Are we including the Bill of Rights in this discussion? The Bill of Rights specifically says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, we see that assaulted on a regular basis.

What is the use of a vague founding document? That flies in the face of all logic. Those that call it a living document are those that don't like what it says and those who wish to generally ignore it.

You are baiting me..ill bite..you left out the first part...

The 2nd amendment is vague...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

If you read through the federalist papers you will see that this was intentional.

Also dont post excerpts from the federalist papers out of context. The Federalist Paper were written in a manner which first states the anti-federalist view point then presents the compromise to be included in the Bill of Rights. Everyone always pulls out excerpts from the first part which merely states the anti-federalist view.

(10-01-2015 09:52 AM)BobL Wrote:  You are baiting me..ill bite..you left out the first part...

The 2nd amendment is vague...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

It is not vague. It is clear as day. What part of shall not is unclear? What part of the first modifies the second? It does not state one must be in a well regulated militia to bear arms.

And, again, the Constitution was constructed to limit federal power, not to empower it. Anything not specifically resting with the federal government was to fall to the states. That allows states to best determine what meets the needs and desires of the citizens of that state. By the nature of that, some states will prosper and some will be less so.

(09-30-2015 04:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:45 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Whether you believe Health Education & Welfare issues should be left to the states; at least 2 if not 3 20th Century Republican Presidents would disagree with you being that Warren Harding was the first to propose a Department of HEW in 1923, Dwight Eisenhower was the first to enact it in his Reorganization Plan #1 of 1953 and Ronald Reagan being the first President to name a Director to the Department of Education in spring 1980.

the Federal Government has long had a National role in ensuring a more "level playing field" among the states in regard to Health & Educational Access and historically Republicans have interpreted the Constitution that way in that they were instrumental in enacting the 2 Federal Departments that address these issues. Some "Modern" Republicans have strayed from that Constitutional Interpretation.

I'll note now that you agree with Republicans, I guess? I'm not sure what two or three Republican presidents thought on a couple of issues matters in this context.

The federal government has overstepped the intent of the founders with respect to your level playing field argument, and in fact, results have demonstrated they've failed. Bureaucrats in Washington are not better suited to determine the educational needs of Oregon, for example, than people in Portland.

A few sane ones yes. Eisenhower would be too centrist/Liberal for the Republican Party now. His granddaughter endorsed President Obama. I like Teddy Roosevelt also but he left the Republican Party at least in part because it did then and even moreso now cowtows to the interets of Billionaires to the detriment of the environment, labor standards, the poor and middle classes.

What 2 or 3 Presidents thought on a couple of issues? Health Education and Welfare are important to millions, so much so that 2 of the most prominent Republican Presidents of the 2oth century enacted Cabinet Departments at least partially to address the needs of the underserved.

O yeah lets just leave education to the states, Utah will be teaching out of the Book of Mormon and Texas and the Bible is a Science Textbook States will educate their students on the kooky idea that the earth is 6000 years old and outlaw the teaching of Evolution and . No just No.

(10-02-2015 10:52 AM)Policiious Wrote:  A few sane ones yes. Eisenhower would be too centrist/Liberal for the Republican Party now. His granddaughter endorsed President Obama. I like Teddy Roosevelt also but he left the Republican Party at least in part because it did then and even moreso now cowtows to the interets of Billionaires to the detriment of the environment, labor standards, the poor and middle classes.

What 2 or 3 Presidents thought on a couple of issues? Health Education and Welfare are important to millions, so much so that 2 of the most prominent Republican Presidents of the 2oth century enacted Cabinet Departments at least partially to address the needs of the underserved.

O yeah lets just leave education to the states, Utah will be teaching out of the Book of Mormon and Texas and the Bible is a Science Textbook States will educate their students on the kooky idea that the earth is 6000 years old and outlaw the teaching of Evolution and . No just No.

The Democratic party is for the poor only in the context of keeping them poor. I find it amusing that you don't see the Democrats as the party of the rich. Boxer, Reid, Soros, Gore, Clinton, Elon Musk, etc. aren't hurting for cash.

Education should be left to the states. If the education in your states sucks, change it or move. There is no guarantee that guidance from Washington causes good education. In fact, history shows otherwise.

(10-01-2015 10:00 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:52 AM)BobL Wrote:  You are baiting me..ill bite..you left out the first part...

The 2nd amendment is vague...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

It is not vague. It is clear as day. What part of shall not is unclear? What part of the first modifies the second? It does not state one must be in a well regulated militia to bear arms.

And, again, the Constitution was constructed to limit federal power, not to empower it. Anything not specifically resting with the federal government was to fall to the states. That allows states to best determine what meets the needs and desires of the citizens of that state. By the nature of that, some states will prosper and some will be less so.

It's totally ambiguous. Why didn't it just say that people had the right to bear arms?

Sanders catching up to Clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/poll...ic-primary

Quote:It's totally ambiguous. Why didn't it just say that people had the right to bear arms?

It does, but it's along with the regulated Militia to keep a free state. It is unclear -- is it two separate statements, or one riding on the other? The early days amendments weren't thought out enough, but I digress...

Here's how one site lays out the interpretation:

Quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

You can't ignore the fact that it does say outright that the people have the right to bear arms -- the people meaning the 'state' vs the federal govt? I don't see that. Was it People as in forming a Militia (see Michigan Militia lol)? Or people as in individuals having nothing to do with a militia and it was just an addition making two statements within one sentence?

(10-03-2015 02:51 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  Sanders catching up to Clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/poll...ic-primary

Bernie isnt going to beat Clinton. Her backing is far too strong.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016...t-primary/

Yeah, Bernie won't beat her. It'd be like seeing EMU having a 1st Quarter lead on Florida State or something. Cute, honorable... makes for good entertainment in the mean time, but not in the end.

(10-04-2015 11:20 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Yeah, Bernie won't beat her. It'd be like seeing EMU having a 1st Quarter lead on Florida State or something. Cute, honorable... makes for good entertainment in the mean time, but not in the end.

I wouldn't even go that far. Bernie is the team that just passed midfield before punting on the first possession of the game.

Seriously Sanders or Clinton, I mean how far has this party fallen.


And no one disagree with anyone in here, or you will be called a racist

(10-04-2015 12:53 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:It's totally ambiguous. Why didn't it just say that people had the right to bear arms?

It does, but it's along with the regulated Militia to keep a free state. It is unclear -- is it two separate statements, or one riding on the other? The early days amendments weren't thought out enough, but I digress...

Here's how one site lays out the interpretation:

Quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

You can't ignore the fact that it does say outright that the people have the right to bear arms -- the people meaning the 'state' vs the federal govt? I don't see that. Was it People as in forming a Militia (see Michigan Militia lol)? Or people as in individuals having nothing to do with a militia and it was just an addition making two statements within one sentence?

Just as you can't ignore the fact that they didn't just say that people have the right to bear arms. In the other amendments, they didn't say WHY they were putting the amendment in there. This one, for some reason, they did. It's rather suspicious to act that the phrase about the militia is essentially meaningless. And we have our militia, it's called the police.

(10-05-2015 05:54 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Seriously Sanders or Clinton, I mean how far has this party fallen.


And no one disagree with anyone in here, or you will be called a racist

1) from your comments I can only assume you are a Caucasian

2) Both Sanders and Clinton are Caucasians

3) Your criticism of them might be sexist or prejudicial regarding Mr Sanders religious beliefs( he is Jewish), but in this case likely not racially based.

(10-02-2015 12:47 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  [quote='Policiious' pid='12451006' dateline='1443801121'

Education should be left to the states. If the education in your states sucks, change it or move. There is no guarantee that guidance from Washington causes good education. In fact, history shows otherwise.

Because leaving education entirely to the states worked so well for racial and religious minorities in the southern US from the end of Reconstruction till almost the modern day. Not to mention Hispanics in Texas or Arizona along those with developmental disabilities in most of the US before the Americans with Disabilities Act which required states to educate physically and mentally disabled children.

Without "guidance from Washington", likely none of the progress that has been made on those fronts would have happened. States, especially those lead by neo cons view education as a luxury for the privileged not the right of all. Your states rights viewpoint doesn't work for those not in the favored racial, ethnic or religious groups or for those not blest to be born without disabilities