Aids HIV FAQ

Supreme Court

Question:

> You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

  I answered this part already.  I was going to give additional examples beyond what I already gave (where I left a placeholder, "x") but never bothered going back to providing such, and need not now.  You understand about implied powers as "necessary and proper," and the distinction between these and general powers and powers not granted. > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?

  A corporation is not an individual.  I am not a lefty who will lose his or her rabid mind about this, but will say that obviously a corporation is not an individual.  For a judge or court to say a corporation is an individual is activism — legal fiction passing as "law" created out of thin air (greatly outdone since the 1930s by liberal judicial activism).

Response:

> > There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government.  (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.) > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

  I am not overstating things.  I am distinguishing between what is truly an implied power, one that is not explicitly laid down in the Constitution, but which follows properly from the powers granted to the federal government.  Note that x >   The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care). > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?

  Changing the subject, are we?  *grin*   I don’t have the time at the moment to discuss this (a demon of the Left) but I will say that Bork, who lays waste to liberal activism since the 1930s in the judiciary, is on record as saying that the courts were activist in a conservative manner in the era preceding the New Deal.  (Bork also discusses conservative judicial activist professors today, a handful of grains of sand on a vast liberal beach.)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. >   That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s.  In > fact, they do not have that.  The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power? >   Yes, you do, if you are the federal government.  Powers not granted > to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth > Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody > dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be > successful).  There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government.  (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.)

You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. >   The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care).

I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>> A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> A real-world example of >> what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a >> number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to >> create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied >> power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks >> upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. > The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not > the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the > Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to > recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example > of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? > I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.

You are right. I’m wrong.

Response:

> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. >  That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s.  In > fact, they do not have that.  The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government.

If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they do and get away with it time and again?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, >> they also have defacto legislative power. >  That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the >  1930s.  In > fact, they do not have that.  The two powers even are > explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the > branches of the federal government. > If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they > do and get away with it time and again?

For the same reason that Nazi Germany passed all sorts of laws. The Volk approved of the effort to make them safe. (Or as Hillery would say — Do it for the children) People are Lazy. Few would be willing to take up Arms to protect what Rights they posses. And with a few well meaning acts the People will cease to have Arms to protect themselves from the intrusion of the State,

Response:

> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power.

  That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s.  In fact, they do not have that.  The two powers even are explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?

  Yes, you do, if you are the federal government.  Powers not granted to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be successful).  There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general grant of power to the federal government.  (A real-world example of what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.)   The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of new federal forms of entitlements (like health care).   What has been true since the 1930s, and accepted by many, is in fact the reverse of what is in the Constitution: "If it is not expressly forbidden, it may be undertaken" by the federal government.  That is the true New Deal American Revolution (turning the Constitution into its opposite).

Response:

> 1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative > power.

But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have defacto legislative power. > 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power > is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and > wrongly exercised.  All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to > the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance > or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of > society).

Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Dave,  Great theory, and I wish it were so. >   All the facts support what I have stated.  And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). >   Great theory.  Wonderful, wonderful. >   But — >>If the federal government were >>limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >>Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >>Education??????   I defy you to find the word "education" in the >>Constitution.   Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >>design. >   I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples. >I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ?

   When they started paying a third of their income in federal taxes.

Response:

> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives. > to make laws is to legislate.  You have heard of the phrease > "Legislate from the Bench"?

Thanks for the correction.

Response:

> Dave,  Great theory, and I wish it were so.

  All the facts support what I have stated.  And yes, I wish it were so (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea).   Great theory.  Wonderful, wonderful.   But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education??????   I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution.   Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design.

  I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you because you answered the question yourself — about education, about "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human needs"), and many other examples. >  In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates.

  Right — and:   * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the force of law;   * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. >  Such a ruse should offend every American.  Its very existence is > evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of > this nation.

  It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family.  Many look to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive).  (The dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the other.)   Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.   This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are easily bought.  Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of many votes, of the Pauls.   The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct construction of the Constitution.  Their reason for proceeding?  The Constitution was in their way.  They did in the 1930s what they thought was "necessary" for the USA.  The only good thing that can be said was that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe in the 1930s.   As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details of its propriety.   Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more."  Some things are water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution.  (I’m concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.)  But it is proper.  "Go and sin no more."  DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG.  (HillaryCare, and the associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 repudiation of liberalism.)

Response:

> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives.

to make laws is to legislate.  You have heard of the phrease "Legislate from the Bench"? from the Constitution: Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Response:

1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative power. 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and wrongly exercised.  All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of society).

Response:

"Dave Simpson" Dave,  Great theory, and I wish it were so.  If the federal government were limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of Education??????   I defy you to find the word "education" in the Constitution.   Education is one of the many areas left to the states by design.  In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal mandates.  Such a ruse should offend every American.  Its very existence is evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of this nation.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ? >Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? >   Yes.  That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to > believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal > government to do.  (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. > They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ > frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington > as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.)  And if they > want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to > the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a > Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress > to cause this to happen. >>>Such a ruse should offend every American.  Its very existence is >>>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>>this nation. >Collective, selective amnesia ? >   Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures.

Sounds like our current administration. >   Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls > love you. And you, at least initially, own them.

Buy them with money or high paying jobs eh ? Now   –   Bush wouldn’t dream of doing a vile thing like that would he ? >Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. >America was never meant to be in that business. >   Maybe, maybe not.  Certainly there was no war declared.  Is modern > war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and > processes?  As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from > prosecuting (waging) it.

Can’t get around this one kiddo. It was wrong. The whole world knows it was. And if you don’t care what the world thinks of us, you ought to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. >   Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with > respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of > government from true governing), yes. >I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for >the refineries to rebuild quickly   –   what with all the regulations and >requirements.     Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak >past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. >   Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say > "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well > as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been > harmful as well as wrong.  Some tiny reform that differs from the > status quo is long overdue.

Environmentalist nonsense? Wow. How old are you anyway ? >Are liberals the only villains at work here ? >Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? >   They have their own problems, including being corrupted by > liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans > in Washington as the worst example for years running.

We can’t keep blaming the last shift for everything that’s going wrong. If we’re not actively working to fix it, it’s as much our problem. > The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the > Civil Rights revolution.  Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years > when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. > Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by > them.

Who are these "better Americans" ? Where are they ? >What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical >care >or prescription medication ?     Tell them they should have gone to college, >had better jobs and invested wisely ? >   If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have > right fully on my side.

Right will never be on you side, or vice versa. You are an elitist. Probably play golf and drive a status auto. If you were poor your song would play very differently. Or perhaps you were born with nothing  -  in a shack  - to a widow – and earned everything you have today by the sweat of your brow ? Do you consider all social issues to be matters of emotionality ? >   It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen > as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local > and state government issue in our constitutional system of government > (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater > and the Constitution trashed even more).

Who constitutes this ‘left’ that you’re having so much trouble with ? How do YOU define left ? Does left mean commie to you ?     Or   –   enemy of the people ? And how on earth do you assume you’re entitled to  say what such a

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dave,  Great theory, and I wish it were so. >   All the facts support what I have stated.  And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). >   Great theory.  Wonderful, wonderful. >   But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education??????   I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution.   Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design. >   I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.

You realize that the Public Health Service traces its roots back to 1798?  It was expanded in the late 19th century to aid in the fight against yellow fever.  Clearly there are matters of public health that cross state lines and cannot be left solely to the states.  If a state decides they don’t want to educate their poor, that problem remains largely inside the state.  If a state decides it doesn’t want to vaccinate its poor, we all pay for that.  If you think drug resistant TB is only a problem for homeless people in New York City, or AIDS patients, you are very much mistaken.  If you think any state has the resources to defend us against H5N1, you are very much mistaken. Environmental protection is another case where you cannot simply leave it to the states.  The tailing from strip mining in one state ruins the water in neighboring states.  Acid rain is not generated in the states that suffer it most.  The nuclear waste they want to store in Nevada was not generated there. >  In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates. >   Right — and: >   * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law;

That is actually a complaint shared by left and right.  The left would even point out that Congress has illegally abrogated its unique Constitutional authority to declare war both in Iraq and Viet Nam.  We are still paying for the consequences of Viet Nam.  How long will we pay for Iraq? Similar complaints are made from the left regarding the FCC.  What does "freedom of the press" mean if a half dozen conglomerates own almost all of it? I think one big difference between left and right in this country is the right is happy to have imperial presidents while the left wants a powerful Congress.  I think most Americans are happy with power shared between the Executive and the Legislature with the Judiciary serving as referee. >   * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary.

Here I tend to think the consequences less dire than when they forfeit power to the Executive.  Congress can undo the judiciary if it has the will of the people.  Undoing a war without the consent of the Executive is impossible. [diatribe and attributions re New Deal snipped] I think most everyone agrees the size of government is too large. Katrina has shown that a big DHS means very little in terms of real security.  Unfortunately, we have developed a lobbyist class beyond anything we ever had before.  There are more lobbyists for pharmaceuticals than members of Congress. And that is just one special interest. The revolving door between government and K street is a real problem. Here’s just one example: Phillip Cooney. He went from being a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute in 2001 to chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This summer he quit that job and went to work for ExxonMobil.  There are thousands of examples like that from both parties.  Unfortunately, the Constitution was never designed to handle that problem.  They were worried about corruption and foreign influence, but the legal fiction of a corporation having individual rights did not exist since the 14th amendment did not exist to be tampered with.   Once you extend the Bill of Rights to give corporations all the rights of individuals, Buckley v. Valeo was a logical extension.  Some days I’m surprised corporations haven’t sought the right to vote. With the rise of corporate consolidation, individuals simply can’t expect states alone to provide effective restraints.  We see it from West Virginia to Michigan, from California to Tennessee.  It doesn’t even have to be manufacturing. If California’s utilities couldn’t keep Enron from raping them, how could anyone expect a state to protect the interests of honest Enron employees? Looking to the federal government for help works in theory, except for the revolving door on K street.  How much help can you expect when the President of Enron has a personal working relationship with President of the United States that enables him to recommend the political appointees who oversee his business interests?  Note… I didn’t specify Republican or Democrat…. Lay was tight with both Clinton and Bush. The problem isn’t left or right. The problem today is crony capitalism.  Think of it as a Corporatist State without any political agenda. Mussolini without a vision.  People point to the Carlyle Group as a prime example of this, but they are mistaken when they paint it as some sort of Bush family business.  There are plenty of people who worked for the Clinton administration in there as well. This didn’t happen overnight.  Kissinger has been doing it for decades.  The monstrosity of it was briefly revealed… but oddly ignored by corporate media … when Kissinger declined the post on the 9/11 Commission.  I mean c’mon… how can you be an American citizen and have "potential conflicts of interest" between your clients and the people who died at the World Trade Center? It wasn’t always like this, even after the perversion of the 14th amendment’s intent.  When John Rockefeller tried to pull that crap during WWII, Congress forced him to give up the trade secrets he held for the German cartel, I.G. Farben.  When Prescott Bush acted as the bagman for Thyssen and Nazi corporate interests, the government came in and closed down his business. Some people point to the 138 Reagan-era appointees who resigned over ethical conflicts or under criminal indictments and say that is where things went bad.  I don’t think they invented corruption, but it certainly reached a new level.  The numbers are sketchier for the Clinton-era because so many of the indictments were aimed at individuals and associates, not necessarily political appointees.  The current administration is no better when it comes to cronyism. They’re just better at avoiding prosecution. Unfortunately, I think balance will not be restored until we elect presidents like FDR who will betray their class interests.  They will then have to appoint people like Joe Kennedy who will betray their friends.

Response:

> I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that > would have to take care of sick people or educate children. > When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was > responsible for all their needs and wants ? > Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ?

  Yes.  That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal government to do.  (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.)  And if they want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress to cause this to happen. >> Such a ruse should offend every American.  Its very existence is >>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>this nation. > Collective, selective amnesia ?

  Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures.   Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls love you. And you, at least initially, own them. > Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. > America was never meant to be in that business.

  Maybe, maybe not.  Certainly there was no war declared.  Is modern war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and processes?  As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from prosecuting (waging) it. > We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before.

  Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of government from true governing), yes. > I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for > the refineries to rebuild quickly   –   what with all the regulations and > requirements.     Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak > past some of those nasty environmental protection issues.

  Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been harmful as well as wrong.  Some tiny reform that differs from the status quo is long overdue. > Are liberals the only villains at work here ? > Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ?

  They have their own problems, including being corrupted by liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans in Washington as the worst example for years running.   The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the Civil Rights revolution.  Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by them. > What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical > care > or prescription medication ?     Tell them they should have gone to college, > had better jobs and invested wisely ?

  If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have right fully on my side.   It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local and state government issue in our constitutional system of government (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater and the Constitution trashed even more).

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dave,  Great theory, and I wish it were so. >   All the facts support what I have stated.  And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). >   Great theory.  Wonderful, wonderful. >   But — >If the federal government were >limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >Education??????   I defy you to find the word "education" in the >Constitution.   Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >design. >   I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.

I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that would have to take care of sick people or educate children. When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was responsible for all their needs and wants ? Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, >establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then >doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal >mandates. >   Right — and: >   * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law; >   * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. > Such a ruse should offend every American.  Its very existence is >evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >this nation.

Collective, selective amnesia ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->   It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser > base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in > degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as > a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a > substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family.  Many look > to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned > dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor > that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive).  (The > dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the > other.) >   Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that > he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of > 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, > though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of > what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. America was never meant to be in that business. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->   This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists > decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved > Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist > totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public > support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the > Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" > (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are > easily bought.  Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of > many votes, of the Pauls. >   The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying > that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct > construction of the Constitution.  Their reason for proceeding?  The > Constitution was in their way.  They did in the 1930s what they thought > was "necessary" for the USA.  The only good thing that can be said was > that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe > in the 1930s.

We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for the refineries to rebuild quickly   –   what with all the regulations and requirements.     Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->   As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related > issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by > left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they > thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details > of its propriety. >   Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the > liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more > support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s > and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more."  Some things are > water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention > that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported > practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution.  (I’m > concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be > misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in > the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing > Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.)  But it is > proper.  "Go and sin no more."  DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, > LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG.  (HillaryCare, and the > associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election > results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 > repudiation of liberalism.)

Are liberals the only villains at work here ? Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical care or prescription medication ?     Tell them they should have gone to college, had better jobs and invested wisely ?

Response:

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among conservatives.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >| >| >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >| >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >| >| In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all >proved >| thir merit in action.  Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >| university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. >| >| -Connie >I write about that which I know.  Colin Powell entered the Army as a college >graduate ROTC student.  No affirmative action on the part of the Army.  Then >he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was >the "up or out" army.)  He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made >him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time.  He >successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to >command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of >responsibility.  Get this.  If at any point he was less than outstanding he >would not have been promoted to the next higher grade.  And I have served >under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point >it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a >difference in what you can do.  I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the >National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his >duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it >was equally obvious that he should.)

An incompetent officers stands out like a sore thumb in the military. Peers, subordinates and superiors can see them and the quota babies seldom get more then one grade above their level of incompetence.  We had them.  But, I knew very few who made E-6 or O4! I also saw Powell several times on the Joint Staff and he was certainly star material.  Everyone carries some degree of unease about people who are different from them.  The thing with liberals is they claim one thing to get political points and are faster then any Klansman to lash out at an ‘uppity nigger’.  Those guys are just not grateful enough and don’t know their place in the liberal world. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the >youngest college graduates in history.  Also the youngest provost of >Stanford University.  Never met her myself.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >>benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved >thir merit in action. >Merit?  Thomas? >Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! >Please, read the book "Disgusted"  mentioned earlier: "The Selling of >Clarence Thomas".  I had the same  "disgusted" reaction. >He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for >Our Masters.  Ever read any of his scanty opinions?  Laughable! >He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments. > Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. >Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her >as smart and bookish (and, subtext,  good at finding the right >mentors!) >Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. >But Thomas?   He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. >His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy >what made good were puke city.  None of those wusses on the Judiciary >dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! >Gimme a break!

Give you a break asshole?  You are running on a dozen identities to pump up the volume including Grammar, Heroic, Horace, Pax and that is just a start.  Why not just use your own name and stand on it jerkoff?

Response:

>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas.

In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved thir merit in action.  Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. -Connie

Response:

>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved >thir merit in action.

   Thomas??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. >-Connie

Response:

| | >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have | >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. | | In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved | thir merit in action.  Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major | university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. | | -Connie I write about that which I know.  Colin Powell entered the Army as a college graduate ROTC student.  No affirmative action on the part of the Army.  Then he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was the "up or out" army.)  He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time.  He successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of responsibility.  Get this.  If at any point he was less than outstanding he would not have been promoted to the next higher grade.  And I have served under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a difference in what you can do.  I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it was equally obvious that he should.) I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the youngest college graduates in history.  Also the youngest provost of Stanford University.  Never met her myself.

Response:

>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved >thir merit in action.  Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so. >-Connie

Had Powell profitted, he would have certainly gone to a better university!   Rice is an intellectual giant and was years ahead of her peers.   I do like to see people who claim to be ‘color-blind’ try to deal with people of color who don’t act right!

Response:

>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action?  They have all proved >thir merit in action.

Merit?  Thomas? Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! Please, read the book "Disgusted"  mentioned earlier: "The Selling of Clarence Thomas".  I had the same  "disgusted" reaction. He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for Our Masters.  Ever read any of his scanty opinions?  Laughable! He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments.  Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action?  I don’t think so.

Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her as smart and bookish (and, subtext,  good at finding the right mentors!) Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. But Thomas?   He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy what made good were puke city.  None of those wusses on the Judiciary dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! Gimme a break! — GeorgeOrwell

Response:

Filed under: Aids