It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 22
45
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

But the 10th Amendment can't be used to violate the 14th Amendment. That is VERY clear.




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

Except for, you know, what the Constitution actually says ...



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I hope you are backing me up. Because what you just posted just attested to my post . That the Constitution is the law of the land......sheesh...

COTUS, Article VI, Clause 2


COTUS, being the supreme law of the land, also states


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


Thus, COTUS, the supreme law of the land, tell us that if a specific power or duty is not given to the federal government than that issue is relegated to the states. If COTUS doesn't say the feds are supposed to mess with it, then the feds aren't supposed to mess with it.


Please take time and read the Constitution an look at what you have posted afterwards.



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

You will learn that the ONLY powers relegated to the Feds when it comes to states is precisely what I posted. You again backed me up with that statement. Although I appreciate your support , I would rather engage in a debate.
edit on 30-6-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

If a Federal law is not backed up by the Constitution, it is "unconstitutional."

If there is no Federal law in place, then the State law is superior.

The concept of State's Rights was settled when we moved from the Articles to the Constitution.

We are not, and were never intended to be merely a loose collection of small satrapies.

We are a nation. The order of legal precedence in the US is Federal>State>Local.

I am aware this fact is troublesome to many.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jimmyx

Why not? Feminists want to have years off to take care of children.



news to me...are you just making that up?...I thought staying at home with the children was a good thing...now I guess that is bad, and working away from the children is bad.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

No, I don't think I'm "backing you up."

You're claiming that State law is superior to Federal law.

It is not. The only way that could be true is if the Federal law were proven to be unconstitutional.

The majority of the "State's Rights" argument is a fiction based on a gross misreading of the Tenth Amendment.


I am going to comment once more to you. There is NO form of government "superior" to any other. Thus the checks and balances that were installed from the beginning .There is only "powers" delegated to either the states or the feds. The amount of federal powers was limited due to the fear that the federal government would overrule state law. That is part of the reason for the separation . Now , please , as a Constitutional Scholar , I grow tired of answering back to someone that has to look up and somehow try to justify their posts. And the question of federal law is different from federal powers and state powers. Federal Law is a law that was passed by the States , "escalated to the Justice Department (not the Supreme Court) and put forward as federal law as this one would be applied nationwide.For the most part , federal law is still adjudicated at a local or state level. These have very little to do with what we are discussing and merely used as a guideline for the prosecution versus a local law.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

You are simply mistaken. I realize you are mostly parroting what you've heard and read on the internet, but, with all due respect, you're wrong on several points.

Read the Supremacy Clause (COTUS, Article VI, Clause 2). Notice the words supreme law of the land.

Checks and balances were established particularly between the branches of our government.

Some did want to limit the "power" of a national government, and some wanted a much stronger central power.

Our Constitution is the compromise, which replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created the "loose association of sovereign states" that the rhetoric you're repeating emphasizes; the US Constitution created our NATION.

You're a "Constitutional Scholar" eh? What's your degree in? Where is it from? Did anyone besides yourself proclaim you as such?

The rest of your post is so ... disjointed, I have no comment on it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: poncho1982

Yep. Switch liberal with conservative and you have a very apt description of my own experience.

Isn't that interesting?


been reading this thread, and as a left of center person, I almost wrote the same thing, Gryphon...so, both sides feel this way??....that is interesting, since I think there are stark differences. the elections of Obama drew back the veiled attempt of republicans saying that racism is over, and exposed it's viscid pustule lying just beneath the surface.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

You are simply mistaken. I realize you are mostly parroting what you've heard and read on the internet, but, with all due respect, you're wrong on several points.

Read the Supremacy Clause (COTUS, Article VI, Clause 2). Notice the words supreme law of the land.

Checks and balances were established particularly between the branches of our government.

Some did want to limit the "power" of a national government, and some wanted a much stronger central power.

Our Constitution is the compromise, which replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created the "loose association of sovereign states" that the rhetoric you're repeating emphasizes; the US Constitution created our NATION.

You're a "Constitutional Scholar" eh? What's your degree in? Where is it from? Did anyone besides yourself proclaim you as such?

The rest of your post is so ... disjointed, I have no comment on it.


Got the scars and the T-shirt to prove it. And again , this is my last post as for as (what is it , the third time?) you have just sort of backed me up again. The primary point is:
The federal government has the power to install treaties with other nations , oversee interstate trade , and defend the states. Thats it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

I hear you jimmyx, and it is very tempting to take our own beliefs as the one truth and relegate everyone else's to the trash heap.

Notice above, poncho stated their beliefs about liberals, and I commented that if you switched liberals and conservatives, I felt almost identical. That's a great example of our own individual filtering systems; poncho thinks that liberals are obviously worse and I think the same of conservatives.

That's why, I TRY to focus only on evidence that is verifiable and avoid merely stating my opinion.

We all have opinions; those opinions do not automatically rise to the level of fact.

Belief is not knowledge.

Does that make sense?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

But the 10th Amendment can't be used to violate the 14th Amendment. That is VERY clear.


Which was the argument in that particular case.


OTOH, the 10th was pretty clear in the issue of the ACA but it was soundly ignored.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Okay ... you seem to be confused about "last time" and/or "last post" ... as well as basic American Government.

So, no formal training? No degrees, licenses, etc. that have "Constitutional Scholar" printed on them?

Cool cool ... so, you're no more qualified than anyone else to read and interpret anything, particularly the Constitution?

The Federal Government has the powers attributed to it in the Constitution, and the power to make laws to enforce those powers.

In regard to your comment:



The federal government has the power to install treaties with other nations , oversee interstate trade , and defend the states. Thats it.


Please read the Constitution if you wish to be a Scholar of it. Glenn Beck is not your best source.

Best.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

Except for, you know, what the Constitution actually says ...



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I hope you are backing me up. Because what you just posted just attested to my post . That the Constitution is the law of the land......sheesh...

COTUS, Article VI, Clause 2


COTUS, being the supreme law of the land, also states


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


Thus, COTUS, the supreme law of the land, tell us that if a specific power or duty is not given to the federal government than that issue is relegated to the states. If COTUS doesn't say the feds are supposed to mess with it, then the feds aren't supposed to mess with it.


Please take time and read the Constitution an look at what you have posted afterwards.



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

You will learn that the ONLY powers relegated to the Feds when it comes to states is precisely what I posted. You again backed me up with that statement. Although I appreciate your support , I would rather engage in a debate.


The powers given to the federal government by the COTUS are spelled out by that document and that document, being the supreme law of the land, clearly states that those things not specifically granted to the feds is the purview of the states. Although the term "states rights" is often used to mean the duties and powers of the state, there really has been, technically, no states rights--just a delegation of powers and duties to the states and the same to the federal government. Constitutionally, the vast majority of what the feds have been doing since the early 20th century have been extra-constitutional. Case in point--we needed a Constitutional Amendment for prohibition because at the time people recognized that the COTUS did not give the federal government power to regulate alcohol. This principle has been ignored for the WOD.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well the ACA discussion is a discussion for another topic. As I've told you, I'm not a fan of that legislation for a myriad of reasons either. I just don't know if I entirely agree with the way its opponents are fighting it either. It kind of puts me between a rock and a hard place mentally.
edit on 30-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

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

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

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


COTUS, Article I, Section 8

Also,

Amendments to the Constitution


edit on 10Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:20:02 -050015p102015666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well the ACA discussion is a discussion for another topic. As I've told you, I'm not a fan of that legislation for a myriad of reasons either. I just don't know if I entirely agree with the way its opponents are fighting it either. It kind of puts me between a rock and a hard place mentally.


Sometimes, the ends do justify the means.

A universal single-payer plan would be better, of course.

But in every meaningful sense, at least thus far, the ACA has met the test of Constitutionality and is the law of the land.

I don't have to like that fact, anymore than I like Hobby Lobby, Citizens United or The Patriot Act.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AboveBoard
Each of the examples are States' Rights and therefore left up to each individual state to legislate. Of course most people do not know the only control ? that the Feds have over the states is to oversee interstate trade and defense of those states. Of course it is very evident our current Administration has a very deep loathing of anything left to the States and to the Constitution that guides this country if it doesnt go along with what they want.
And . if anything deals with states' rights , it is not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To get there a decision has to be made by local circuit courts and then appealed all the way there . The main thing in these cases are if whether or not there was a popular vote taken in those states. If so , that should weigh completely on whether or not the issue can be appealed. A definite miscarriage of justice and a total disregard for the Constitution.



It doesn't matter that they are under "state law" in your reasoning or "federal law." The entire point of the argument was the "legalizing of opinions." The "liberal left" had been accused of this, and I was merely bringing up how the "conservative right" does exactly the same thing in trying to legalize their own preferences and opinions.

As to states verses federal, the federal government and SCOTUS steps in when states are not properly administering the Constitution of the United States. In other words, the Voting Rights Act, the current gay marriage ruling, and Roe v Wade were decided, (at one time though the voting rights act has been gutted) at the SCOTUS level because it was an issue regarding the Constitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court's decisions decide the matter at the federal level in order to uphold things like "equal protection under the law."

So, I think your broad interpretation of state's rights is misguided, and the examples I provided, either way, pertain to the subject of "legalizing opinions."

- AB



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Well the ACA discussion is a discussion for another topic. As I've told you, I'm not a fan of that legislation for a myriad of reasons either. I just don't know if I entirely agree with the way its opponents are fighting it either. It kind of puts me between a rock and a hard place mentally.


Well, certainly, but I didn't think this discussion was limited to one ruling and seemed to have been drifting into state vs federal.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think the ends are justifying the means here. I don't think the ACA is helping the people it is designed to help. Yes, it is nice that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage now, but I feel like we sacrificed SOOOO much to get this for coverage that pretty much amounts to you paying the insurance company to allow you to have free preventative care (like THAT was ever the most expensive part of health care...)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Seems to me , this entire thread has been on topic. It does state "Liberal Bigotry" in the topic . And it is coming out here thick and heavy....

edit on 30-6-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think the ends are justifying the means here. I don't think the ACA is helping the people it is designed to help. Yes, it is nice that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage now, but I feel like we sacrificed SOOOO much to get this for coverage that pretty much amounts to you paying the insurance company to allow you to have free preventative care (like THAT was ever the most expensive part of health care...)


I understand it is not optimal. I still feel betrayed and angry. I don't disagree with what you are saying.

I guess I'd have to reply "small moves."

Someday we'll get where we need to be.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join