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.

 

Trump's Approval Rating Hit a New High of 50%. Most Think He's Keeping Promises.

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Triplicate
edit on 28-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
triplicate
edit on 28-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Law is the cornerstone of civility within a society... If we don't enforce, or selectively enforce our laws that elevates certain people above others within a society.
edit on 28-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

To say "there is no need for x regulations" is to state an opinion.

Using maxims like "trimming down the fat" are folksy but imprecise.

You are correct on one point though: the wording is at least two regs will be cut.

As I said, there are EOs the damage of which will only be seen going forward. The spirit of this particular EO, perhaps not the letter, follows the ideological belief that fewer regulations are better than more.

Further, it follows the idea that the Federal Government's charge to care for the "general welfare" of the People is somehow severely limited in scope and practice.

We should have exactly the number of regulations needed and no more, that I surely agree with. But cutting for the sake of cutting merely looks good on paper, it might have severe effects that, as I said, damage individuals in unforeseen ways.
edit on 28-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you believe there is a need for literally (more than) a million regulations?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you believe there is a need for literally (more than) a million regulations?


I don't pretend to know.

How many do you think there should be? 500K? 100K? 1000? 100?

And whatever number you pick, what is the rational basis for it?

If it takes a million regs to fulfill the charge of the Federal Government, then that is what it takes. The arbitrary idea that regulations are bad seems to bear no real relationship to the reality of what is needed and what is not to meet that charge.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'll say this again, just once, seeing you did not answer it last time I asked you. What is beneficial to "everyone" (this implies every single US citizen) that going after laws that the people (who own this country) have voted in majority to have something legalized? Is it beneficial to the multiple citizens that passed the law only to get shut down by one persons opinion?

By your saying is that the protection of society as a whole should be only ruled by the elite rather than the actual will of the people.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not many. I'm not going to pretend to know an exact number, but I know that the federal government has expanded so far from the constitutional limits that this EO, a small axe, is only a ribbon cutting ceremony. Whole departments need to be shut down.
The constitution charges the federal government with eight duties:
Defense (war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce)
The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights and ensuring that slavery remains illegal
Establishing federal courts
Copyright protection
Coining money
Establishing post offices and post roads
Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures
Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions

Where does the EPA fit? Where does minimum wage law fit? Where does the department of education fit? Where does the NLRB or department of energy fit?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

To my mind we're getting off topic, although I'd love to discuss it with you.

I agree in general, but I do believe that we have to look through the lenses of 1791 into the present.

James Madison and the Founders could not have foreseen the complexity of the current world.

It is my belief that is the reason they put in generic phrases like "provide for the general welfare."

I realize, based on what you said, that you believe that should be very narrow if acknowledged at all.

However, I've gone as far on that side of the topic as I can.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

I'm guessing you're beating around the bush about marijuana laws. The rule of law is beneficial to all. I know you don't like that answer, but it's the actual answer and it makes sense. If you would like to legalize marijuana in your state, you need to first have the federal laws removed.

I would personally vote for the removal of the federal laws and for marijuana restriction laws in my state. You need to follow the process, not try to subvert it. Why do you think a state has the right to subvert a federal law with no repercussion? Under your scenario, a state should be free to permit the sale of rocket launchers and machine guns to their citizens, despite being banned at the federal level.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You still never answered my question. And no I was not talking about that. Nor should it be concerning as it has been legal for me since 1996, and have protection from federal laws under PC 11362.5

Peace.


edit on 28-2-2017 by TheLotLizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I believe a preamble isn't law. It is an introduction. It provides context for which to look at the articles that follow. They were the goals of the following articles. Basically the preamble says: 'in order to create a more perfect union, we've come up with these laws, they are as follows:"

The preamble cannot be the basis for a law, especially when the 10th amendment specifically prohibits them from deviating from the constitution.

Here's the legal definition of preamble: "the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification."

The preamble is not the law. The law follows the preamble.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

I did, you just didn't like the answer and were unable to come up with a satisfying rebuttal.
edit on 28-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Article 1, Section 8:




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;



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And? I'm not sure what you think that means.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: TheLotLizard

I did, you just didn't like the answer and were unable to come up with a satisfying rebuttal.


Rebuttal? You never came up with anything besides... It is beneficial because law is law. Lmao



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Actually I told you that law is beneficial because otherwise certain people are elevated above others. If you can't see how it's beneficial for everyone to play by the same set of rules, I can't help you out with that.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


I'm over trying to debate with you. You do know that some laws were created to elevate some above others?

Mind blown!



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Sure, businesses do it all the time. It's beneficial to them to create barriers to entry. But just because there are bad laws doesn't mean we should subvert the process of remedying them.

If you notice, republican voters believe this, as they've all lived Obamacare but now voted in the people to rid us of it. There will be hell to pay at the ballot box if they don't.
edit on 28-2-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
If Trump is truly at 50%, that's damn impressive. Nobody has ever had the level of hatred spewed at them by the propaganda machine of the news media and Hollywood as Trump has. If Trump just keeps doing what he said he'd do, he'll be fine.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join