Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Your self-righteous insistence that you know the Constitution better than many Supreme Court justices and any other citizens who disagree with you on a particular interpretation is tiresome, baseless and insulting.
|
whatever, i'm still right. your little diatribe you linked to showed quite plainly that any 'broad' interpretation of general welfare came during FDR's new deal and not a true reading of the constitution. The Hamilton doctrine steadfastly shows that 'general welfare' was for the country as a whole, not specified locations such as an island in alaska or wetlands in north carolina, unless the fed government bought the land.
I also noticed that the lower half of the article had a lot to explain about how the feds coerce the states with funding to bring about it's agenda. If it were truly a 'general welfare' purpose then it wouldn't need to worry about recouping funding, as it would be 'general welfare'. It's blindingly obvious to rational people that the feds bribe the states to move a socialist agenda forward and that makes it technically unconstitutional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
dksuddeth, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb" isn't a very compelling argument.
It might be acceptable if you could ever be bothered to back up the claims you make with anything beyond, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb," but that seems to be a rarity.
|
It isn't any different than trying to 'lead a horse to water'. If they aren't willing to drink what is plainly in front of them, who am I to force it on them?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Really, i'm genuinely interested in the point you're trying to make, it's just difficult really relate to it when you refuse to back it up in any sort of meaningful way.
|
I back it up with the plain text of the constitution, what more do you want?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
If the ussc isn't capable of interpreting the constitution, what makes you think that you are?
|
The USSC is completely capable of interpreting the constitution. What people conveniently bury their heads in the sand about is that there are two political agendas in this country when it concerns the judiciary power and neither of them have the constitution in mind. Again, the plain reading of the text of the constitution is very easy to understand. It's when you get people with an agenda that does not jive with the plain text of the constitution is where you end up with tortured definitions of words like 'is'.