Evil & Shameless OR Colossally Ignorant?
Probably both.
@ 2:50. "Somehow the notion that if you're for secession, interposition, you're for nullification you're more American than for (sic) someone that abides by the Constitution."
I guess amendments aren't part of the Constitution, eh moron?
Let's get this out of the way: The frothing homosexual freakshow Matthews is FAR more fixated on race than Obama's critics, EVEN the "Birthers", are. His own words sputtered on air has demonstrated this time and again. (And just HOW does he keep his job? He sounds like he's having to mop up spittle as he utters his lunatic ravings. The dude simply cannot speak.)
The faggot continues: "It's gotten crazy, it's gotten distorted."
Really?
Let's examine those two amendments, shall we?
9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th: 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.
The words are not difficult to comprehend in the least.
These two pesky tacked-on (and virtually always ignored) "tidbits" should have gutted the vision of totalitarian bastards ever arising in our nation.
Look over the US Constitution. The powers our government has are limited, few and specified. Now open any newspaper. 90% of the activities being discussed and powers being used by the Feds are ILLEGAL. They are not authorized by the Supreme Law of our country.
The 9th and 10th amendments are DESPISED by both the Liberal Douchebags of the modern "Left" AND the Neocons Warmongers of the modern "Right" because of their clear language and the fact that they would strip the Federal Government of virtually ALL of its power were they adhered to.
Crying "racism" is a pathetic, cowardly scare tactic intended (as usual) to instantly shut off debate.
Yes, racists pushed for nullification and defiance of the federal courts. Yes, it was used against minorities. But that's a legally-tenable position because of the way our system was designed. Life sucks sometimes.
You ignorant totalitarian bastards don't like it? Push for the repeal of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Otherwise, read the damn Constitution, obtain a little reading comprehension and STFU.
@ 2:50. "Somehow the notion that if you're for secession, interposition, you're for nullification you're more American than for (sic) someone that abides by the Constitution."
I guess amendments aren't part of the Constitution, eh moron?
Let's get this out of the way: The frothing homosexual freakshow Matthews is FAR more fixated on race than Obama's critics, EVEN the "Birthers", are. His own words sputtered on air has demonstrated this time and again. (And just HOW does he keep his job? He sounds like he's having to mop up spittle as he utters his lunatic ravings. The dude simply cannot speak.)
The faggot continues: "It's gotten crazy, it's gotten distorted."
Really?
Let's examine those two amendments, shall we?
9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th: 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.
The words are not difficult to comprehend in the least.
These two pesky tacked-on (and virtually always ignored) "tidbits" should have gutted the vision of totalitarian bastards ever arising in our nation.
Look over the US Constitution. The powers our government has are limited, few and specified. Now open any newspaper. 90% of the activities being discussed and powers being used by the Feds are ILLEGAL. They are not authorized by the Supreme Law of our country.
The 9th and 10th amendments are DESPISED by both the Liberal Douchebags of the modern "Left" AND the Neocons Warmongers of the modern "Right" because of their clear language and the fact that they would strip the Federal Government of virtually ALL of its power were they adhered to.
Crying "racism" is a pathetic, cowardly scare tactic intended (as usual) to instantly shut off debate.
Yes, racists pushed for nullification and defiance of the federal courts. Yes, it was used against minorities. But that's a legally-tenable position because of the way our system was designed. Life sucks sometimes.
You ignorant totalitarian bastards don't like it? Push for the repeal of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Otherwise, read the damn Constitution, obtain a little reading comprehension and STFU.
Labels: law, liberal douchebags, stupid people, u.s. constitution
posted by mmaier2112 at 1:48 PM
7 Comments:
I don't despise either one of those amendments. Fortunately, neither of them repeals the necessary and proper clause from Article 1, Section 8. That clause gives the Federal government broad license to do things that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution knew that it had to be a document that could change as the times changed, which is why they built into it measures like the necessary and proper clause and the system of amending the Constitution.
You're making a strict constructionist argument, but Article 1, Section 8 and the ability to amend the Constitution are powerful arguments against the validity of the strict constructionist argument.
The 10th amendment also does not say what the states may or may not do with those powers reserved to them. They could allow those powers to be Federalized if they wanted to. That's part of the give-and-take that must exist within any functioning nation-state.
I'm just sayin'...
You're on crack.
The 10th prohibits every power NOT specifically granted.
It's plain English.
See, this is just one more area where we disagree. What you say fits within the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. To me, that interpretation is not valid because the Constitution was very obviously written with the knowledge firmly in the heads of its authors that it could not, as written, stand the test of time. It had to be able to change with the times.
The 10th reserves powers to the states, but the Federal government can use the necessary and proper clause to reclaim those powers. If the 10th repealed the necessary and proper clause, the strict constructionist argument might be able to hold. The 10th does not do this, and that largely invalidates the strict constructionist argument.
There's no "reclaiming". If it's a vested power, it's right there in plain English.
Please show where anyone has said "The Feds shouldn't have a Post Office" and I'll agree with you.
But that's not an argument I've ever seen.
The feds should not prohibit competition with the USPS (they have an enforced monopoly on first-class mail)
Oh and even if the Founders wrote the N&P Clause with your interpretation in mind, John... What do AMENDMENTS, by definition, do> Go ahead, shout out if you know the answer... anyone? Yes that's right, Michael, they AMEND what preceeded them.
By the way, John, you are right that the Founders anticipated that it would be necessary for the Constitution to "change with the times" and so they thoughtully specified WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, the procedure for... anyone? Anyone? Right again, Michael, A-M-E-N-D-I-N-G it.
If you don't like the 10th Amendment, John, the thing to do is to drum up majority support in 2/3s of the states to... anyone? Let's not always see the same hands...
Amend does not equal supersede. Parts of the Constitution struck down by amendments are noted as having been superseded by amendment. (Click here. This does not apply to the necessary and proper clause.
I don't have a problem with the 10th amendment. I said that once, but I guess I have to repeat. I just disagree witih Michael's interpretation of what that amendment does. I don't agree with the strict constructionist argument because it is not a valid argument.
Nice try, but no one said amend has to equal supercede.
"It's not a valid argument." You should go on the road with your humour.
You very obviously DO have a problem with the 9th and 10th and their very clear language.
You could offer up Slick Willie's "depends on the meaning of 'is'" defense and be just as consistent.
Words mean things.
I doubt you would ever dare to offer up such "creative interpretations" to your wife about your marriage vows.
Post a Comment
<< Home