Discussion:
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed>>>Notice how you see almost nothing from the left but tabloid garbage
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2018-01-29 15:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18 years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
--
That's Karma

Make the Socialists proud of you, strive to be the best at mediocrity
that you can be.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-29 20:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.

And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Peter Franks
2018-01-29 20:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?

Seems that we spend a lot of time trying to control either or both of
those, yet I still can't find any such delegated authority... ?
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-29 22:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
Post by Peter Franks
Seems that we spend a lot of time trying to control either or both of
those, yet I still can't find any such delegated authority... ?
Peter Franks
2018-01-29 23:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Seems that we spend a lot of time trying to control either or both of
those, yet I still can't find any such delegated authority... ?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-01-29 23:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank, one of the key elements in the levers
that affect macroeconomics:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Peter Franks
2018-01-31 17:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, one of the key elements in the levers
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-01-31 18:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, one of the key elements in the levers
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Don Kresch
2018-01-31 23:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-01 01:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
Quoting from the restored link:

"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316

Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into
execution the explicitly delegated powers to tax, borrow, regulate
interstate commerce, declare war, and raise and support armies.
Don Kresch
2018-02-01 03:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:55:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
That's nice. Doesn't answer the question, though.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Try again.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-01 04:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:55:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
That's nice. Doesn't answer the question, though.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
The foregoing powers were listed above:

"lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to
declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies."
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause
carrying into execution the explicitly delegated powers to tax, borrow,
regulate interstate commerce, declare war, and raise and support armies.
Post by Don Kresch
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Try again.
So sorry. Chief Justice Marshall - speaking for a unanimous SCOTUS -
disagrees with you in a binding precedent that has lasted 200 years.
Don Kresch
2018-02-01 13:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:02:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:55:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
That's nice. Doesn't answer the question, though.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
None of those mention establishing a national bank.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause
carrying into execution the explicitly delegated powers to tax, borrow,
regulate interstate commerce, declare war, and raise and support armies.
Post by Don Kresch
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Try again.
So sorry.
Nope. Try again.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Chief Justice Marshall
Is irrelevant. The USSC has also had no problem with the
clearly-unconstitutional PATRIOT act, so don't give me any of that
shit. Plus, you'll find NOWHERE in the constitution that the USSC is
the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

Try again.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-01 16:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:02:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:55:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
That's nice. Doesn't answer the question, though.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
None of those mention establishing a national bank.
The point of the Necessary and Proper is to give Congress the power to
enact laws that *aren't* mentioned in the foregoing powers but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers. The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
Don Kresch
2018-02-01 23:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:02:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:55:43 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
You didn't answer the question.
That's nice. Doesn't answer the question, though.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
None of those mention establishing a national bank.
The point of the Necessary and Proper is to give Congress the power to
enact laws that *aren't* mentioned in the foregoing powers
BULLSHIT.

It fucking says it's to enact laws ONLY mentioned in the
foregoing powers. Read. The. Fucking. Words.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-02 00:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
None of those mention establishing a national bank.
The point of the Necessary and Proper is to give Congress the power to
enact laws that *aren't* mentioned in the foregoing powers
BULLSHIT.
It fucking says it's to enact laws ONLY mentioned in the
foregoing powers. Read. The. Fucking. Words.
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers. If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution. That can't be the case.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
Peter Franks
2018-02-02 02:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
    Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
    None of those mention establishing a national bank.
The point of the Necessary and Proper is to give Congress the power to
enact laws that *aren't* mentioned in the foregoing powers
    BULLSHIT.
    It fucking says it's to enact laws ONLY mentioned in the
foregoing powers. Read. The. Fucking. Words.
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.  If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy. Glad you finally saw the light.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
    A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
  The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
    No it's not.
Why not?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-02 05:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.  If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be
stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
Peter Franks
2018-02-07 23:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.  If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be
stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 00:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.  If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be
stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 17:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be
stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.

Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people. The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the constitution, it
adds nothing, ergo superfluous.

This thereby proves that there are superfluous clause(s) within the
constitution which renders Corley v. United States null and void of meaning.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be
stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
 superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.  The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the constitution, it
adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution. The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.

In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with the
implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text stands as
is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
This thereby proves that there are superfluous clause(s) within the
constitution which renders Corley v. United States null and void of meaning.
Peter Franks
2018-02-09 21:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing
powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy
that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.  The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the constitution,
it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with the
implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text stands as
is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though. Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.

In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.

Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is misapplied to
the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying (non-expansive
clause). This is improper.

General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a power
in and of itself.

N&P specifically and exclusively applies to /powers/:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This thereby proves that there are superfluous clause(s) within the
constitution which renders Corley v. United States null and void of meaning.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-10 01:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing
powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy
that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.  The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the constitution,
it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with
the implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though.  Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is misapplied to
the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying (non-expansive
clause).  This is improper.
I cannot parse any of your above statements.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a power
in and of itself.
I agree.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
I agree again. But we still disagree because I believe there must be at
least one law authorized by the N&P Clause carrying into execution a
power that is not permitted by the power alone.

The canonical example is a law that makes it illegal to steal the mail.
That law carries into execution the power to create Post Offices, but is
not authorized by the power to create Post Offices alone.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 22:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the
foregoing powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a
redundancy that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That
can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.  The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the
constitution, it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with
the implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though.  Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is misapplied
to the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying
(non-expansive clause).  This is improper.
I cannot parse any of your above statements.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a power
in and of itself.
I agree.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
I agree again.  But we still disagree because I believe there must be at
least one law authorized by the N&P Clause carrying into execution a
power that is not permitted by the power alone.
N&P enables the creation of an Air Force exclusively for the purposes of
providing for the common defense of the United States. That is an
example of the purpose and application of N&P. Sans N&P, it could
justifiably be argued that the creation of an Air Force would require a
constitutional amendment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The canonical example is a law that makes it illegal to steal the mail.
That law carries into execution the power to create Post Offices, but is
not authorized by the power to create Post Offices alone.
Your example is flawed, no such authority is delegated. And here is
where you start to season your hat for your next meal.

Consider:

8.5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

8.6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;

If we use your (flawed) rules of application, 8.6 is superfluous as
punishments would be implied by 8.5.

But we know that 8.6 isn't superfluous; rather it is the explicit
delegation of the authority to punish. 8.7 has no such delegation of
authority.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-16 04:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the
foregoing powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a
redundancy that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That
can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.
The statement is not required to be part of the text of the
constitution, it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with
the implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though.  Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is misapplied
to the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying
(non-expansive clause).  This is improper.
I cannot parse any of your above statements.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a
power in and of itself.
I agree.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
I agree again.  But we still disagree because I believe there must be
at least one law authorized by the N&P Clause carrying into execution
a power that is not permitted by the power alone.
N&P enables the creation of an Air Force exclusively for the purposes of
providing for the common defense of the United States.  That is an
example of the purpose and application of N&P.  Sans N&P, it could
justifiably be argued that the creation of an Air Force would require a
constitutional amendment.
Air travel wasn't known to the framers. The Air Force is authorized by
the power to create the Army and Navy (the entirety of the Armed Forces
at the time).
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The canonical example is a law that makes it illegal to steal the
mail. That law carries into execution the power to create Post
Offices, but is not authorized by the power to create Post Offices alone.
Your example is flawed, no such authority is delegated.
Amazing!
Post by Peter Franks
And here is
where you start to season your hat for your next meal.
8.5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
8.6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
If we use your (flawed) rules of application, 8.6 is superfluous as
punishments would be implied by 8.5.
But we know that 8.6 isn't superfluous; rather it is the explicit
delegation of the authority to punish.  8.7 has no such delegation of
authority.
Chief Marshall considered this precise argument in McCulloch:

"The right to enforce the observance of law by punishing its infraction
might be denied with the more plausibility because it is expressly given
in some cases. Congress is empowered to provide for the punishment of
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States
[...]. The several powers of Congress may exist in a very imperfect
State, to be sure, but they may exist and be carried into execution,
although no punishment should be inflicted, in cases where the right to
punish is not expressly given."

But then Marshall rejects the argument based on Congress's ability to
punish those who steal the mail. This ability is recognized by
consensus (hence my Amazing above).
Peter Franks
2018-02-24 02:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the
foregoing powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a
redundancy that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That
can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous statement?
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.
The statement is not required to be part of the text of the
constitution, it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution
is redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should
be interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with
the implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though.  Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is
misapplied to the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a
clarifying (non-expansive clause).  This is improper.
I cannot parse any of your above statements.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a
power in and of itself.
I agree.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
I agree again.  But we still disagree because I believe there must be
at least one law authorized by the N&P Clause carrying into execution
a power that is not permitted by the power alone.
N&P enables the creation of an Air Force exclusively for the purposes
of providing for the common defense of the United States.  That is an
example of the purpose and application of N&P.  Sans N&P, it could
justifiably be argued that the creation of an Air Force would require
a constitutional amendment.
Air travel wasn't known to the framers.
Yep.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The Air Force is authorized by
the power to create the Army and Navy (the entirety of the Armed Forces
at the time).
Nope.

As I said and you ignored, it could be argued that sans N&P the air
force could NOT be created w/o constitutional amendment.

Do you disagree?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The canonical example is a law that makes it illegal to steal the
mail. That law carries into execution the power to create Post
Offices, but is not authorized by the power to create Post Offices alone.
Your example is flawed, no such authority is delegated.
Amazing!
Post by Peter Franks
And here is where you start to season your hat for your next meal.
8.5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,
and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
8.6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
If we use your (flawed) rules of application, 8.6 is superfluous as
punishments would be implied by 8.5.
But we know that 8.6 isn't superfluous; rather it is the explicit
delegation of the authority to punish.  8.7 has no such delegation of
authority.
"The right to enforce the observance of law by punishing its infraction
might be denied with the more plausibility because it is expressly given
in some cases.  Congress is empowered to provide for the punishment of
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States
[...].  The several powers of Congress may exist in a very imperfect
State, to be sure, but they may exist and be carried into execution,
although no punishment should be inflicted, in cases where the right to
punish is not expressly given."
But then Marshall rejects the argument based on Congress's ability to
punish those who steal the mail.  This ability is recognized by
consensus (hence my Amazing above).
You can't have it both ways.
TT Liams
2018-02-10 02:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the
foregoing
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a
redundancy
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be the case.
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution,
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous
statement?
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.  The
statement is not required to be part of the text of the
constitution,
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution is
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should be
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant with the
implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though. Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is
misapplied to
Post by Peter Franks
the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying
(non-expansive
Post by Peter Franks
clause). This is improper.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a power
in and of itself.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This thereby proves that there are superfluous clause(s) within the
constitution which renders Corley v. United States null and void
of
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
meaning.
Trump's a prejudice liar rumdum that's gone to hell.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 22:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P
permits beyond that which was already permitted by the
foregoing
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
powers. If that were the case, the N&P Clause is a
redundancy
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
that can be stricken from the Constitution.  That can't be
the case.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
It is a redundancy.  Glad you finally saw the light.
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution,
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Isn't 'powers reserved to the people' not a superfluous
statement?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Superfluous with what?
  superfluous: adj. Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Superfluous with the fact that all power comes from the people.
The
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
statement is not required to be part of the text of the
constitution,
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
it adds nothing, ergo superfluous.
When I refer to a redundancy, I mean the text of the Constitution
is
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
redundant with other text in the Constitution.  The text should
be
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
interpreted such that never occurs.
In your interpretation of a redundancy - the text is redundant
with the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
implied understanding of the Constitution - I think the text
stands as
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
is since it clarifies that implied understanding.
It doesn't clarify the text, though.  Instead of using as a
clarification, you (et alii) are using it as an expansion.
In short, you daisy-chain multiple clarifying causes to justify an
expansion of power that doesn't exist.
Your expansive interpretation of 'necessary and proper' is
misapplied to
the 'general welfare' clause, which is also a clarifying
(non-expansive
clause).  This is improper.
General welfare is a limitation on the taxing power, it is not a
power
in and of itself.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into
Execution the foregoing Powers,..."
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This thereby proves that there are superfluous clause(s) within
the
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
constitution which renders Corley v. United States null and void
of
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
meaning.
Trump's a prejudice liar rumdum that's gone to hell.
Damn straight -- but it is all in our face.

Compare with how it would have been with Hillary. Still going to hell,
but all in total secrecy and hidden from public view.
Don Kresch
2018-02-03 05:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
Note the word "foregoing". Now how does that mean there is the
authority to establish a national bank, given that there is no such
foregoing power given.
None of those mention establishing a national bank.
The point of the Necessary and Proper is to give Congress the power to
enact laws that *aren't* mentioned in the foregoing powers
BULLSHIT.
It fucking says it's to enact laws ONLY mentioned in the
foregoing powers. Read. The. Fucking. Words.
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
That's what it means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.
Non sequitur.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-03 05:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
That's what it means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.
Non sequitur.
To the contrary, reading the N&P to not be a redundancy is fundamental.

https://nortontooby.com/node/227668

By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary or merely beneficial and
conducive? Some instances of "necessary" in the Constitution:

"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it's inspection Laws."

"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."

In the first example, necessary means absolutely necessary per the plain
text. But in the other two examples, necessary means beneficial and
conducive. Ditto in the N&P clause. The national bank is beneficial
and conducive to collecting taxes in the same way that laws against mail
theft are beneficial and conducive for establishing Post Offices.
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 01:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
That's what it means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.
Non sequitur.
To the contrary, reading the N&P to not be a redundancy is fundamental.
No, it's really not.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-04 01:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
That's what it means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.
Non sequitur.
To the contrary, reading the N&P to not be a redundancy is fundamental.
No, it's really not.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what? Nope, the federal government can't proscribe mail theft?
Or nope, I was wrong and the federal government can proscribe mail theft?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

So, the President can only recommend measures that are absolutely necessary?

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."

So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 04:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Under your reading, there isn't a single law which the N&P permits
beyond that which was already permitted by the foregoing powers.
That's what it means.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If
that were the case, the N&P Clause is a redundancy that can be stricken
from the Constitution.
Non sequitur.
To the contrary, reading the N&P to not be a redundancy is fundamental.
No, it's really not.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://nortontooby.com/node/227668
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
And that has to conform to the foregoing powers. Which doesn't
include a national bank.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-04 04:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
So, the President can only recommend measures that are absolutely
necessary?
Post by Don Kresch
And that has to conform to the foregoing powers. Which doesn't
include a national bank.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."

So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 06:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
but are
needed to *carry into execution* those foregoing powers.
A national bank does not fit at all, since it is neither
necessary nor proper for the foregoing powers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The national
bank fits because it isn't mentioned but is needed to carry into
execution the mentioned-power of collecting taxes.
No it's not.
Why not?
You have to show that it is needed/necessary.
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
So, the President can only recommend measures that are absolutely necessary?
Post by Don Kresch
And that has to conform to the foregoing powers. Which doesn't
include a national bank.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-04 06:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
nor is it absolutely necessary to carry into execution a delegated power.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
So, the President can only recommend measures that are absolutely necessary?
Well? Yes or no?

... and

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."

So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Yes or no?
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 15:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
False.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Does necessary mean absolutely necessary
Yes.
"[The President] shall [...] recommend to [Congress's] Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
So, the President can only recommend measures that are absolutely necessary?
Well?
Well what? I answered you. Learn to fucking read, idiot.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?

Fuck, you're stupid. Quit while you're behind.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-04 16:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
False.
The delegated power is to establish Post Offices and Postal Roads, not
to outlaw the theft of mail.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
Under your reading of the word "necessary" only Amendments that Congress
shall deem absolutely necessary are permitted to be proposed in the
first place. Right?
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 20:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
False.
The delegated power is to establish Post Offices and Postal Roads
And?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, not
to outlaw the theft of mail.
False.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
Under
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?

I'll let you stew angrily on that.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-04 21:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
False.
The delegated power is to establish Post Offices and Postal Roads
And?
... there is no mention of outlawing theft of mail.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, not
to outlaw the theft of mail.
False.
Given there is no mention of outlawing theft of mail, how did you reach
that conclusion?
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
Under
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
I'll let you stew angrily on that.
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be based
on the population of each state, would that be part of the Constitution,
or would it be unconstitutional?
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 23:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
By your argument, the federal government is prohibited from proscribing
the theft of mail, even though doing so carries into execution the power
to establish Post Offices.
Nope. Try again.
Nope to what?
About what you think my argument says.
Under your argument, how is it that the federal government is permitted
to proscribe theft of mail?
How isn't it?
Because under your argument it is not authorized by a delegated power,
False.
The delegated power is to establish Post Offices and Postal Roads
And?
... there is no mention of outlawing theft of mail.
And?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, not
to outlaw the theft of mail.
False.
Given there is no mention of outlawing theft of mail, how did you reach
that conclusion?
It's obvious.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
Under
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?
I'll let you stew angrily on that.
If
You realize that amendments are part of the constitution,
RIGHT?

I'll let you stew angrily on that.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Peter Franks
2018-02-07 23:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be based
on the population of each state, would that be part of the Constitution,
or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 17:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be
based on the population of each state, would that be part of the
Constitution, or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
There is no necessary purpose. Popular representation is achieved
thorough the House of Representatives.

Such a change would be unconstitutional because it is not a necessary
change.
Mitchell Holman
2018-02-08 18:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be
based on the population of each state, would that be part of the
Constitution, or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
There is no necessary purpose. Popular representation is achieved
thorough the House of Representatives.
Such a change would be unconstitutional because it is not a necessary
change.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional
amendment. By definition they are part of the
constitution.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be
based on the population of each state, would that be part of the
Constitution, or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
There is no necessary purpose. Popular representation is achieved
thorough the House of Representatives.
Such a change would be unconstitutional because it is not a necessary
change.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional
amendment. By definition they are part of the
constitution.
Per Article V, an amendment that bases the number of Senators on
population would be unconstitutional unless every state ratified it:

"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate."
Don Kresch
2018-02-08 23:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be
based on the population of each state, would that be part of the
Constitution, or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
There is no necessary purpose. Popular representation is achieved
thorough the House of Representatives.
Such a change would be unconstitutional because it is not a necessary
change.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional
amendment. By definition they are part of the
constitution.
Per Article V, an amendment that bases the number of Senators on
Such is the fun of government, isn't it.

And amendments, well....amend. So it wouldn't be
unconstitutional.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Peter Franks
2018-02-09 22:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If an Amendment were passed saying the number of Senators would be
based on the population of each state, would that be part of the
Constitution, or would it be unconstitutional?
What is the necessary purpose of such a law?
There is no necessary purpose. Popular representation is achieved
thorough the House of Representatives.
Such a change would be unconstitutional because it is not a necessary
change.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional
amendment. By definition they are part of the
constitution.
As I explained elsewhere, an amendment that is passed that is based on
an authority that can't (or wasn't) delegated isn't law and can't be
constitutional. It may be in the text of the constitution, but it isn't
enforceable and therefore unconstitutional.

For example, suppose the following amendment were ratified:

"All armed males shall be put to death without trial."

A) No such authority exists with the people, no such authority can be
delegated to government.

B) Any such amendment is therefore null and void, without meaning,
application or justified power to execute.

C) It may be included as part of the text of the constitution for a
period of time...

D) ... but the armed males would rise up and revolt and overthrow the
government and revise or create an alternate constitution, at which
point the amendment is no longer include in the text of the constitution.

Arguing that such an amendment is constitutional makes about as much
sense as arguing that a mugger is a nice person because he smiled at you
as he beat you into submission and took your belongings. He is NOT a
nice person, and it is NOT a constitutional amendment.

Have a nice day.
jim <""@mwt.net>
2018-02-04 22:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The delegated power is to establish Post Offices and Postal Roads
And?
And nothing else in regard to Post Offices and Postal Roads
prohibiting mail theft is not mentioned.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, not
to outlaw the theft of mail.
False.
Really???
You can find a mention of mail theft in the Constitution???
Peter Franks
2018-02-07 23:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 00:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 17:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
I'm hardly alone.

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many
respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same
principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are
unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption
that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the
proper place for them to rest. ... I admit that these arguments are not
entirely without foundation; ...

et cetera.

James Madison

https://usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec10
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
I'm hardly alone.
I think so (see below).
Post by Peter Franks
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many
respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same
principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are
unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption
that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the
proper place for them to rest. ...  I admit that these arguments are not
entirely without foundation; ...
et cetera.
James Madison
https://usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec10
What Madison was arguing is that Bill of Rights were superfluous because
it is redundant with the implied understanding of the text of the
Constitution. He was *not* saying that the Bill of Rights were
unconstitutional.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 23:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
I'm hardly alone.
I think so (see below).
Post by Peter Franks
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many
respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same
principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are
unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption
that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the
proper place for them to rest. ...  I admit that these arguments are
not entirely without foundation; ...
et cetera.
James Madison
https://usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec10
What Madison was arguing is that Bill of Rights were superfluous because
it is redundant with the implied understanding of the text of the
Constitution.
Is something that is superfluous necessary?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
He was *not* saying that the Bill of Rights were
unconstitutional.
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 17:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful. For example, the
25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a President
appoint a new Vice President is useful.

I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 23:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example, the
25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a President
appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.

What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-16 04:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example, the
25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a President
appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary? How so? We can get along without it. Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Peter Franks
2018-02-24 02:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example,
the 25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a President
appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary?  How so?  We can get along without it.  Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
I said necessary, and I meant necessary. Arguing that it is necessary
or absolutely necessary is pointless as the text states necessary, and
that is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?

Well?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-24 04:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example,
the 25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a
President appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary?  How so?  We can get along without it.  Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
I said necessary, and I meant necessary.  Arguing that it is necessary
or absolutely necessary is pointless as the text states necessary, and
that is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Whether "necessary" means "absolutely necessary" or "beneficial,
convenient or useful" makes all the difference in the analysis.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Well?
I can't answer that until we have a common agreement on what "necessary"
means.
Peter Franks
2018-03-21 03:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example,
the 25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a
President appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary?  How so?  We can get along without it.  Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
I said necessary, and I meant necessary.  Arguing that it is necessary
or absolutely necessary is pointless as the text states necessary, and
that is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Whether "necessary" means "absolutely necessary" or "beneficial,
convenient or useful" makes all the difference in the analysis.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Well?
I can't answer that until we have a common agreement on what "necessary"
means.
You sure seem content to declare that necessary means whatever you want
in the context of the N&P clause.

Now you advocate that we need to have a common agreement on what
necessary means when you feel the constriction?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-21 12:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example,
the 25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a
President appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary?  How so?  We can get along without it.  Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
I said necessary, and I meant necessary.  Arguing that it is
necessary or absolutely necessary is pointless as the text states
necessary, and that is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Whether "necessary" means "absolutely necessary" or "beneficial,
convenient or useful" makes all the difference in the analysis.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Well?
I can't answer that until we have a common agreement on what
"necessary" means.
You sure seem content to declare that necessary means whatever you want
in the context of the N&P clause.
No.
Post by Peter Franks
Now you advocate that we need to have a common agreement on what
necessary means when you feel the constriction?
Yes.
Gospel TT
2018-03-21 15:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Amazing!
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not necessary?
Necessary cam mean beneficial, convenient or useful.  For example,
the 25th Amendment is not absolutely necessary but having a
President appoint a new Vice President is useful.
I remain hopeful you don't believe the 25th Amendment is
unconstitutional because it is not absolutely necessary.
It is necessary.
Absolutely necessary?  How so?  We can get along without it.  Not as
well as we would with it, but we can get along.
I said necessary, and I meant necessary.  Arguing that it is necessary
or absolutely necessary is pointless as the text states
necessary, and
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
that is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Whether "necessary" means "absolutely necessary" or "beneficial,
convenient or useful" makes all the difference in the analysis.
Post by Peter Franks
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not
necessary?
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What is the constitutionality of an amendment that is not
necessary?
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Well?
I can't answer that until we have a common agreement on what
"necessary"
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
means.
You sure seem content to declare that necessary means whatever you want
in the context of the N&P clause.
Now you advocate that we need to have a common agreement on what
necessary means when you feel the constriction?
Leftist's want to let pervert's wearing dresses in are little girl's
bathroom's & they want to steal all are gun's & kill fetus's & do
identity politic's cause that's what Marx & Engels told them there
supposed to do!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teresita
2018-02-08 01:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments. They're in the Constitution. So they are
automatically constitutional.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 18:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they are
automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary. Unnecessary amendments are included in
the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.

Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an authority
not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they
are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are included in
the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an authority
not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 23:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they
are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are included in
the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an authority
not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of Article V.
Are they constitutional?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-16 04:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they
are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are included
in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of Article V.
Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal suffrage in
the Senate without the state's approval. And yes, that would be
unconstitutional.
Peter Franks
2018-02-24 02:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So
they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are included
in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of Article
V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal suffrage in
the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes, that would be
unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question. Try again. Here's a
hypothetical that you can answer if you get stuck:

Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the congress
signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is added, thereby
modifying the constitution.

Is that amendment constitutional?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-24 04:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So
they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are included
in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of Article
V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal suffrage
in the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes, that would be
unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question.  Try again.  Here's a
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the congress
signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is added, thereby
modifying the constitution.
Is that amendment constitutional?
Obviously no.
Peter Franks
2018-03-21 03:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So
they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are
included in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not
constitutionally justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of Article
V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal suffrage
in the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes, that would be
unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question.  Try again.  Here's a
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the congress
signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is added,
thereby modifying the constitution.
Is that amendment constitutional?
Obviously no.
So it is possible to have amendments that are unconstitutional.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-21 12:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So
they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are
included in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not
constitutionally justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of
Article V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal
suffrage in the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes, that
would be unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question.  Try again.  Here's a
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the
congress signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is
added, thereby modifying the constitution.
Is that amendment constitutional?
Obviously no.
So it is possible to have amendments that are unconstitutional.
Yes. So what? How is that relevant to the discussion about the meaning
of necessary in Article V or the N&P clause?
Peter Franks
2018-03-22 15:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So
they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are
included in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not
constitutionally justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of
Article V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal
suffrage in the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes, that
would be unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question.  Try again.  Here's a
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the
congress signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is
added, thereby modifying the constitution.
Is that amendment constitutional?
Obviously no.
So it is possible to have amendments that are unconstitutional.
Yes.  So what?
You can review the thread as well as I can:

"Funny thing about Amendments. They're in the Constitution. So they
are automatically constitutional."

We've proved that statement false.
How is that relevant to the discussion about the meaning
of necessary in Article V or the N&P clause?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-23 00:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are
unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.
So they are automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary.  Unnecessary amendments are
included in the constitution, to be sure, but they are not
constitutionally justified, ergo not constitutional.
Further, amendments that are passed but that are based on an
authority not delegated are similarly unconstitutional.
All amendments are based on the authority in Article V.
What about amendments that are not based on the authority of
Article V. Are they constitutional?
The only such amendment would be taking away a state's equal
suffrage in the Senate without the state's approval.  And yes,
that would be unconstitutional.
You didn't read or answer my question.  Try again.  Here's a
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the
congress signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is
added, thereby modifying the constitution.
Is that amendment constitutional?
Obviously no.
So it is possible to have amendments that are unconstitutional.
Yes.  So what?
"Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they
are automatically constitutional."
We've proved that statement false.
Teresita made that statement, not me.
Byker
2018-03-23 17:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Dems idiot plans have backfired, making The Don more powerful than ever:
https://tinyurl.com/y94hw2g7

“Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis": https://tinyurl.com/y6w55uzf

“Democracy is just fine. Liberalism, however, is slitting its own throat.”:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/01/the-end-of-liberalism/

Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would
DESTROY political correctness: https://tinyurl.com/pzjtrgl

There is no more room for Leftists in American government anymore, at all
levels: https://tinyurl.com/y8tuumww

There are many ways that liberals have degraded our culture, but these are
the worst of the worst: https://tinyurl.com/ydcc4jpq

Don Kresch
2018-02-08 23:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they are
automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary. Unnecessary amendments are included in
the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
But they modify the constitution, so they are constitutional.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 23:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution."
So, Amendments that were not absolutely necessary are unconstitutional?
Strictly speaking, YES!
Funny thing about Amendments.  They're in the Constitution.  So they are
automatically constitutional.
No, only if the are necessary. Unnecessary amendments are included in
the constitution, to be sure, but they are not constitutionally
justified, ergo not constitutional.
But they modify the constitution, so they are constitutional.
Suppose that the president issues an executive order to amend the
constitution to change presidential terms to 25 years and the congress
signs it into law (simple majority) and the amendment is added, thereby
modifying the constitution.

Is that amendment constitutional?
Peter Franks
2018-02-02 02:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:29:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
  things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
    You didn't answer the question.
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the
word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and collect
taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a
war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a Government
intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be intrusted with ample
means for their execution. [...] To its enumeration of powers is added
that of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into
execution the explicitly delegated powers to tax, borrow, regulate
interstate commerce, declare war, and raise and support armies.
By implication, a bank, exercising its necessary and proper powers can
therefore tax, borrow, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, and
raise and support armies.

Chase, et alii, will be thrilled with that news.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-02 05:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find
the word bank or incorporation, we find the great powers, to lay and
collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and
conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies [...] a
Government intrusted with such ample powers[...] must also be
intrusted with ample means for their execution. [...] To its
enumeration of powers is added that of making all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Thus, the answer is the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into
execution the explicitly delegated powers to tax, borrow, regulate
interstate commerce, declare war, and raise and support armies.
By implication, a bank, exercising its necessary and proper powers can
therefore tax, borrow, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, and
raise and support armies.
Chase, et alii, will be thrilled with that news.
Section 8 describes the powers of Congress, not a private bank.
Peter Franks
2018-02-02 02:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it. Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.

Funny how the simplest questions are some of the hardest to answer.

Seriously, have you ever stopped to think that you are flat out wrong?

I presume that you haven't.

Try it.

Conclusion: the authority to establish a national bank was not and has
not been delegated to the federal government.

Now that we've put a bullet in the head of that, we can return to my
/original/ question:

"where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment
or economic figures?"

Yeah, go and dance with that one for a while, you will still be wrong.
Those authorities aren't delegated either.

It must suck to be you: wrong on so many levels. Oh well, we still love
you just the same, Rosie.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
, one of the key elements in the levers
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-02 05:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash, but
they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't satisfy
you).
Don Kresch
2018-02-03 05:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash
Argument from authority fallacy.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-03 05:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash
Argument from authority fallacy.
I didn't say he was wrong because he disagrees with Marshall.
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 01:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash
Argument from authority fallacy.
I didn't say he was wrong because he disagrees with Marshall.
I got two words: bull fucking shit. You did and you know it.
Don't lie.


Don

aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Peter Franks
2018-02-07 23:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash, but
they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't satisfy
you).
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish a
national bank?

YOU?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 00:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash, but
they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't
satisfy you).
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish a
national bank?
YOU?
Asked and answered.
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 18:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash,
but they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't
satisfy you).
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish
a national bank?
YOU?
Asked and answered.
Asked.

Not answered.

You posted a link.

You have not answered the question.

You won't answer the question.

You can't answer the question.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-02-08 18:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash,
but they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't
satisfy you).
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to
establish a national bank?
YOU?
Asked and answered.
Asked.
Not answered.
You posted a link.
You have not answered the question.
You won't answer the question.
You can't answer the question.
Since you are apparently too lazy to read the link, the authority is the
Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into effect the Taxing Power (and
other delegated powers to).
Peter Franks
2018-02-15 23:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to
government to control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such
 things. There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are
connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate
such levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the
authority delegated?
When it comes to a national bank...
Where is the authority to establish a national bank?
Did you read the link?
Yeah, I read some if it.  Mostly hogwash, and it didn't answer the
question either.
You are free to call Chief Marshall and a unanimous Court hogwash,
but they answered the question (it's just that their answer doesn't
satisfy you).
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to
establish a national bank?
YOU?
Asked and answered.
Asked.
Not answered.
You posted a link.
You have not answered the question.
You won't answer the question.
You can't answer the question.
Since you are apparently too lazy to read the link, the authority is the
Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into effect the Taxing Power (and
other delegated powers to).
Taxing power is to be used exclusively to pay for the debts and provide
for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There
is no subsequent provision, explicit nor implied, that authorizes the
establishment of a national bank.
Teresita
2018-02-08 01:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish a
national bank?
COTUS I:8 [The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures.

The money coined and regulated by Congress is called Federal Reserve
banknotes.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Don Kresch
2018-02-08 01:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Franks
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish a
national bank?
COTUS I:8 [The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures.
The money coined and regulated by Congress is called Federal Reserve
banknotes.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

COIN is the operative word.

The fed--which didn't exist until 1913--only tells the
treasury to PRINT notes. Not COIN money.

Big difference.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Peter Franks
2018-02-08 18:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Franks
Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish
a national bank?
COTUS I:8 [The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures.
The money coined and regulated by Congress is called Federal Reserve
banknotes.
That is not a national bank.

Can you point out the clause that delegates the authority to establish a
national bank?

And just so that we are all clear here, when we say 'national bank' we
are talking about an institution that controls the flow, distribution
and availability of money.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-30 10:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Peter Franks
2018-01-31 17:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are on the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of 2008. The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Authority is delegated to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof",
not control currency. But that still doesn't answer my question: where
is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment or
economic figures?

Let's just simplify for now, one at a time:

Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-01-31 18:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
That's too vague a power. What specific law or regulation did you have
in mind?
Peter Franks
2018-02-02 02:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Peter Franks
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
That's too vague a power.
Damn straight it is vague. So vague that it doesn't even exist.

OK, that's one dead: no authority to control unemployment.

Next: where is the authority delegated to government to control economic
figures?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What specific law or regulation did you have
in mind?
Malcolm McMahon
2018-02-04 09:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are
on
the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of
2008.
The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Authority is delegated to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof",
not control currency. But that still doesn't answer my question: where
is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment or
economic figures?
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
Well, that's pretty irrelevant since governments are incapable of directly
controlling unemployment. When they use the levers of macroeccocomics, like tax
rates and interest rates they may _hope_ that it will affect unemployment, or
then again they may not give a damn.
Don Kresch
2018-02-04 15:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level in 18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and they hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are
on
the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of
2008.
The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Authority is delegated to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof",
not control currency. But that still doesn't answer my question: where
is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment or
economic figures?
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
Well, that's pretty irrelevant since governments are incapable of directly
controlling unemployment.
Oh bullshit. When a law is created which mandates a price
floor for labor which is above the market rate--THAT will directly
cause unemployment.

Learn econ.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-02-05 10:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level
in
18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and
they
hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are
on
the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama
presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of
2008.
The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Authority is delegated to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof",
not control currency. But that still doesn't answer my question: where
is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment or
economic figures?
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
Well, that's pretty irrelevant since governments are incapable of directly
controlling unemployment.
Oh bullshit. When a law is created which mandates a price
floor for labor which is above the market rate--THAT will directly
cause unemployment.
So it was assumed but it turns out to depend on the level you set the minimum
wage at.
Don Kresch
2018-02-05 13:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Peter Franks
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Meanwhile, the stock market soars, unemployment at it's lowest level
in
18
years, illegal immigration way down...
And the left talks about porn stars.
The Left won't be happy until America is destroyed.
The left have their own vission for how America ought to develop and
they
hold
it just as strongly as you hold yours. I doubt either vission is actually
realistic.
And, by the way, these wonderful unemployment and ecconomic figures are
on
the
same trajectory that they were on in the final months of the Obama
presidency,
if anything just slightly slower. The markets are chearful. because they've
been chaffing under the restrictions intended to prevent a repeat of
2008.
The
price of a bull market will be more bears down the line, and probably
another
crash.
Help me out here -- where is the authority delegated to government to
control unemployment or economic figures?
Governments have certain macro-ecomomic levers that can affect such things.
There's often some uncertaintly about how such levers are connected, of course.
(Unjust) Governments certainly usurp power over and/or manipulate such
levers, but that doesn't answer the question: where is the authority
delegated?
Governments control the currency. Whoever controls the currency is the real
government, whatever its called.
Authority is delegated to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof",
not control currency. But that still doesn't answer my question: where
is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment or
economic figures?
Where is the authority delegated to government to control unemployment?
Well, that's pretty irrelevant since governments are incapable of directly
controlling unemployment.
Oh bullshit. When a law is created which mandates a price
floor for labor which is above the market rate--THAT will directly
cause unemployment.
So it was assumed
No, it's apodictic.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Loading...