Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize that the courts have disagreed with you on this since the lochner era.
You do realize, don't you, that the obviousness of the courts being wrong is utterly impossible to miss. All it requires is a reading of said document;
Quote:
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;
Which three parties are named in the Constitution and who are they?
I really wish the founding fathers would have indicated somewhere they were inspired by God to create the Constitution to quell all the clamoring for the application of common sense to clauses in this document that no longer suit the times. I mean just like the Bible, how can this document ever be wrong?
Oh, it is wrong...
Article 5 of the Bill of Rights grants the power to take property with "just compensation".
That is a very bad flaw. Government should NEVER have the power to take your property, for ANY reason. EVER.
Well if that is the case then it was written on toilet paper to begin with since it isn't the freaking 10 Commandments handed down from on high but rather the work of politicians, lawyers and judges who made many political compromises to craft a document that most could agree on and like other political documents folks read into it what they like and ignore what they don't, some didn't agree with any of it.
What's with this myth that politicians do not always attempt to violate the law?
The Constitution was written in plain english so that we, the people, could understand it, and rebel against the government when it violated it's limitations. And it explicitly didn't let the government disarm it, so we could disarm IT if it got out of hand.
Article 5 of the Bill of Rights grants the power to take property with "just compensation".
That is a very bad flaw. Government should NEVER have the power to take your property, for ANY reason. EVER.
That of course is absolutely absurd.
The outcome of course would simply make most infrastructure impossible and reduce us to an agrarian society.
One could never manufacture nor practice large scale agriculture. Airlines would be impossible without the air easement. No railroads, or only short ones. Certainly no interstate highways.
No electric grid.
No oil wells
No oil refineries
No subways
And the accounting system to keep it straight would bankrupt us all.
The Constitution was written in plain english so that we, the people, could understand it,
Then why are you having such problems with the text?
For example Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Is not the 5th Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The outcome of course would simply make most infrastructure impossible and reduce us to an agrarian society.
One could never manufacture nor practice large scale agriculture. Airlines would be impossible without the air easement. No railroads, or only short ones. Certainly no interstate highways.
No electric grid.
No oil wells
No oil refineries
No subways
And the accounting system to keep it straight would bankrupt us all.
I don't know about his reasoning but here is the Court's
"It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses, and to enable it to perform its proper functions. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. These cannot be preserved if the obstinacy of a private person, or if any other authority, can prevent the acquisition of the means or instruments by which alone governmental functions can be performed. The powers vested by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States. These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy-yards and light-houses, for custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses, and for other public uses. If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of property-holders to sell, or by the action of a State prohibiting a sale to the Federal government, the constitutional grants of power may be rendered nugatory, and the government is dependent for its practical existence upon the will of a State, or even upon that of a private citizen. This cannot be. No one doubts the existence in the State governments of the right of eminent domain, — a 238*238 right distinct from and paramount to the right of ultimate ownership. It grows out of the necessities of their being, not out of the tenure by which lands are held. It may be exercised, though the lands are not held by grant from the government, either mediately or immediately, and independent of the consideration whether they would escheat to the government in case of a failure of heirs. The right is the offspring of political necessity; and it is inseparable from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law. . . . But it is no more necessary for the exercise of the powers of a State government than it is for the exercise of the conceded powers of the Federal government. That government is as sovereign within its sphere as the States are within theirs. True, its sphere is limited. Certain subjects only are committed to it; but its power over those subjects is as full and complete as is the power of the States over the subjects to which their sovereignty extends. . . .
Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, Justice Strong writing for the majority.
I don't know about his reasoning but here is the Court's
"It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses, and to enable it to perform its proper functions. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. These cannot be preserved if the obstinacy of a private person, or if any other authority, can prevent the acquisition of the means or instruments by which alone governmental functions can be performed. The powers vested by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States. These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy-yards and light-houses, for custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses, and for other public uses. If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of property-holders to sell, or by the action of a State prohibiting a sale to the Federal government, the constitutional grants of power may be rendered nugatory, and the government is dependent for its practical existence upon the will of a State, or even upon that of a private citizen. This cannot be. No one doubts the existence in the State governments of the right of eminent domain, — a 238*238 right distinct from and paramount to the right of ultimate ownership. It grows out of the necessities of their being, not out of the tenure by which lands are held. It may be exercised, though the lands are not held by grant from the government, either mediately or immediately, and independent of the consideration whether they would escheat to the government in case of a failure of heirs. The right is the offspring of political necessity; and it is inseparable from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law. . . . But it is no more necessary for the exercise of the powers of a State government than it is for the exercise of the conceded powers of the Federal government. That government is as sovereign within its sphere as the States are within theirs. True, its sphere is limited. Certain subjects only are committed to it; but its power over those subjects is as full and complete as is the power of the States over the subjects to which their sovereignty extends. . . .
Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, Justice Strong writing for the majority.
Using a law dictionary, define subjects and then define people for us.
We The People are individually sovereign. People of the free nation, are the subjects of no one.
Using a law dictionary, define subjects and then define people for us.
We The People are individually sovereign. People of the free nation, are the subjects of no one.
No we are not subjects of but we are subject to the rules and laws of our fellow citizens.
You do realize, don't you, that the obviousness of the courts being wrong is utterly impossible to miss. All it requires is a reading of said document;
Which three parties are named in the Constitution and who are they?
The people;
The states;
The United States;
To whom does each term refer?
You do realize that according to the Constitution itself in article 3 that the courts are charged with adjudicating the constitution and the SCOTUS is basically defacto infallable when it comes to adjudicating the Constitution. As such for all intents and purposes in the real world when its you against the courts as far as the Constitution goes you are wrong.
Quite simply you are ignoring the plain language of this part of the Constitution.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...."
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
Last edited by Egbert; 05-18-2014 at 01:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
