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.

 

Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
To have supporting evidence you must be asserting that something exists.

I am saying that they are not unconstitutional because nothing in the Constitution forbids them.

Therefore I can not have supporting evidence because I am not asserting something exists.


If the power isn't expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, that does not mean it is ok. As I stated before, using your logic, genocide is constitutional since it isn't prohibited in said document right?




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Well, you chose to ignore my post calling you on the fact that you just stated that in office, your laws wouldn't follow the Constitution (an admission of treason).

Originally posted by iori_komei
I am saying that they are not unconstitutional because nothing in the Constitution forbids them.

Wrong. Isn't the Tenth Amendment nifty?

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Meaning that if it isn't in the Constitution, it's reserved to the states, counties, municipalities, or individuals.


I mean, come on. This is the second criminal thing you said you would endorse, the first being that you had no problem with rape as a means to extract information.



Originally posted by slackerwire
If the power isn't expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, that does not mean it is ok. As I stated before, using your logic, genocide is constitutional since it isn't prohibited in said document right?

Well, to be fair, genocide isn't allowed. Well, without a trial. Bolding is mine, again.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


[edit on 26-8-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike




Originally posted by slackerwire
If the power isn't expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, that does not mean it is ok. As I stated before, using your logic, genocide is constitutional since it isn't prohibited in said document right?

Well, to be fair, genocide isn't allowed. Well, without a trial. Bolding is mine, again.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




A law could be passed making it legal to exterminate a certain group. We all know it's absurd to think such a thing could happen, but in fact the ridiculousness of such a law is just like the policies little Mr. Socialist proposes.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
It could be passed, but it wouldn't follow the Constitution. It would be not only unconstitutional, but explicitly forbidden.

Though with the way people in office have been over the past century, I don't think that would stop them. They could suspend habeas corpus (as our favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, did) and declare Martial Law. Then some nasty things could happen.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Well, you chose to ignore my post calling you on the fact that you just stated that in office, your laws wouldn't follow the Constitution (an admission of treason).

Originally posted by iori_komei
I am saying that they are not unconstitutional because nothing in the Constitution forbids them.

Wrong. Isn't the Tenth Amendment nifty?

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Meaning that if it isn't in the Constitution, it's reserved to the states, counties, municipalities, or individuals.


If you had been paying attention you would have seen I've already talked about this,
and indeed shown it as how these programs are able to exist.

The people have the power to create it, the people are elected.


Anyways, I have no reason to further answer your questions unless I find them actually
useful or something that I would give an informative (as in something I have'nt said yet)
response to them.



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join