Turtle, Seems to me we have the Supreme Court to decide just what is Constituional and what is not. It simply. None of it matters does not matter what you, or pretty much anyone else, claims is not Constuional, Dosen't matter if your claim is perfectly reasonable, logical and well documented. None of it matters untill it has gone thru our legal process and the Supreme Court has made a ruling. In fact even that is no guarantee. In 1832 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation in their suit against the state of Georgia. The majority opinion was writtn by John Marshall. President Andrew Jackson simple refused to enforce it.
In summation. It does not mean jack shit that in your opinion it's a clear violation of the Constituion. On Jun 28, 9:44 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> wrote: > Such activity is clearly a violation of the constitution. > > as I noted most of what the federal government spends money on > violates the tenth > > On Jun 28, 10:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok I'll try again. It is your position then, that there are NOT over > > 100 universities (not service acadmies) that receive SOME federal > > funds? Hmmm. You try again. > > Oh and there are no libraries that are federally funded? Museums? > > Hmmmm. You try again. > > > On Jun 28, 7:33 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Federal highways were created for national defense and easily > > > justified > > > > libraries-are they paid for by the federal government? > > > > Most universities are state funded-many were land-grant colleges- > > > entirely consistent with the constitution. Service academies are > > > federally funded-and clearly constitutional as are ROTC programs. > > > > Try again > > > > On Jun 28, 10:29 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 1. Where does the Constitution prohibit these things? > > > > 2. By your logic, highways, libraries and most universities would be > > > > unConstitutional. Correct? > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:25 pm, The Supreme Turtle <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > 70% of what the federal government spends money on violates the tenth > > > > > amendment. > > > > > > social security, welfare payments, etc are all unconstitutional > > > > > > On Jun 28, 10:14 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Note 2: The part of this Clause relating to the mode of > > > > > > apportionment > > > > > > of representatives among the several States has been affected by > > > > > > Section 2 of amendment XIV, and as to taxes on incomes without > > > > > > apportionment by amendment XVI. > > > > > > > The constitution was designed to be changed as appropriate. As I > > > > > > said, it is what it is. The problem is that the politicians are > > > > > > still > > > > > > doing many things beyond their authority. > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:00 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So then Richard, you think women should not vote, Indians who > > > > > > > have not > > > > > > > been taxed and 3/5 of black male votes should be the law? The > > > > > > > Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2 on this matter. > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:51 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The constitution is what it is. The words are clear and the > > > > > > > > intent is > > > > > > > > well documented. The problem is not the constitution, but > > > > > > > > rather the > > > > > > > > politicians who attempt to exceed the powers they were granted. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:45 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Obviously, much has changed over a couple hundred years. I > > > > > > > > > see people > > > > > > > > > on both sides of the aisle argue about this. > > > > > > > > > We need gun control. Wire-tapping Americans without a warrant > > > > > > > > > is fine > > > > > > > > > because it protects us. Gays should be able to marry. Due > > > > > > > > > process and > > > > > > > > > cruel & unusual punishment doesn't apply to everyone. Poor > > > > > > > > > Liberals > > > > > > > > > are denied their freedom of speech. Poor Conservatives are > > > > > > > > > denied > > > > > > > > > their freedom of speech. And on it goes. > > > > > > > > > > The first thing I would change is the right to burn the > > > > > > > > > American Flag > > > > > > > > > in public. I just don't see it as a freedom of speech / > > > > > > > > > expression or > > > > > > > > > anything else. I don't see a need to protect this particular > > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > What would you change?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
