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.

 

Congressman : Let's install a ticking debt clock on the House floor

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by aching_knuckles



Our Congress, with its powers granted BY THE CONSTITUTION, has enacted these programs by law, therefore making them lawful, and Constitutional. Im sorry you dont like it, BUT THATS HOW IT IS IN AMERICA.

Just because you think it is uncontitutional does not make it so! Im sorry, but you lost and you are wrong. Get over it.


Huh?

You think Congress makes everything Constitutional simply by passing bills into law?

You cannot be serious.

If indeed you are serious, and have somehow remembered to breathe today, you have a gross misunderstanding of Constitutional law and governmental functions in general.

Wow, I seriously never thought anyone could actually be that ignorant while still choosing to debate a topic.


By passing the bill into law, the president signs, and then never struck down by the Supreme Court, this sounds like a Constituional law to me...all 3 branches did their job.

What part of that do you consider Unconstitutional?




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


A little historical context would be in order here [snip].

Indians were raping and killing each other long before Europeans ever showed up.

You act as if they are all victim and hold no responsibility whatsoever.


As i stated on another thread, you are comparing tribal warfare to small pox blankets and enforced genocide? The US killed far more indians than Germany killed Jews. But they had a "Manifest Destiny", so I guess it was the indians fault for being here, right?

You guys are like [snip], the sad thing is too many Americans are buying into this crap and thinking they are rallying around the founding fathers, when in reality they are against everything the fathers stood for.
edit on 19/4/11 by masqua because: Removed childish name-calling in quote

edit on 19/4/11 by masqua because: same removed from text



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by aching_knuckles



Our Congress, with its powers granted BY THE CONSTITUTION, has enacted these programs by law, therefore making them lawful, and Constitutional. Im sorry you dont like it, BUT THATS HOW IT IS IN AMERICA.

Just because you think it is uncontitutional does not make it so! Im sorry, but you lost and you are wrong. Get over it.


Huh?

You think Congress makes everything Constitutional simply by passing bills into law?

You cannot be serious.

If indeed you are serious, and have somehow remembered to breathe today, you have a gross misunderstanding of Constitutional law and governmental functions in general.

Wow, I seriously never thought anyone could actually be that ignorant while still choosing to debate a topic.


By passing the bill into law, the president signs, and then never struck down by the Supreme Court, this sounds like a Constituional law to me...all 3 branches did their job.

What part of that do you consider Unconstitutional?


You do realize that there are bills that never get signed by the POTUS right?


The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by a two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President's signature. This is called "overriding a veto," and is difficult to do because of the two-thirds majority requirement.


www.usconstitution.net...

Further solidifies you lack of Constitutional knowledge.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


nope the founding fathers were all about freedom and independence

they were not about enslavement and dependence.
edit on 18-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


The part where Congress spends our money in a way not delegated to them by the Constitution.

The part where Congress makes laws when they have no such Constitutional authorization to do so.

How about laws that have been on the books for quite some time and are then overturned as being unconstitutional?

Are the 100% Constitutional for a period of time, and then all of the sudden they become unconstitutional?

Your understanding of Constitutional law is tremendously flawed. That is not opinion, that is fact. You clearly have no idea of the very few and enumerated powers Congress has according to the Constitution.

The fact you are too dense to understand you are wrong is not surprising given your posting history here.

Here is an idea that may help you: Spend less time sucking at debating, and more time learning history and fact.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


You do realize that there are bills that never get signed by the POTUS right?


Further solidifies you lack of Constitutional knowledge.


Yes, those bills that arent signed are NEVER ENACTED INTO LAW. You just keep lying and obfuscating.

BILLS THAT ARE LAWS HAVE BEEN VOTED ON IN CONGRESS, SIGNED BY THE PREZ, AND NOT CHALLENGED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.

You seem to think these are UNCONSITUTIONAL laws. Who is the one without knowledge? You 3 are all arguing the same point. You 3 are the people that are Unconstitutional...you want to overthrow our peacfully made laws and make your own government.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
wrong agian

what we want is a constitutional republic which is what we were founded as

we are nothing but a mob ruled society the government was never meant to become the end all be all of our existence.
edit on 18-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili

Your understanding of Constitutional law is tremendously flawed. That is not opinion, that is fact. You clearly have no idea of the very few and enumerated powers Congress has according to the Constitution.

The fact you are too dense to understand you are wrong is not surprising given your posting history here.



Well, if that is the case, why dont you have a case open in the Supreme court? It should be so easy to overthrow these Unconstituional laws right? I mean, you should spend more time writing your plea to the court instead of wasting precious time here on ATS. I mean, if you are such a Constitutional scholar, you should easily be able to prove that our entire system is based on an Unconstituional provision.

The fact that you (or anyone that thinks like you) has never done so is all the proof I need that you are wrong. You can scream all you want about it, but until you are proven right in the Supreme Court, you are doing nothing but spouting an opinion. If you dont like it, sorry Charlie.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Um, you may need to re-read Article 1 sect 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.


A1 section 1 suggests that the legislative powers be vested in the Congress.


What exactly do you think "legislative power" is?


you answered your own statement, provision, not law. thus Unconstitutional.


No, if it is signed into law, then the entirety of the act becomes law. You can't pick and choose which parts are applicable and which are not. Congress can repeal it or the SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional, neither of which has happened.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


You do realize that there are bills that never get signed by the POTUS right?


Further solidifies you lack of Constitutional knowledge.


Yes, those bills that arent signed are NEVER ENACTED INTO LAW. You just keep lying and obfuscating.

BILLS THAT ARE LAWS HAVE BEEN VOTED ON IN CONGRESS, SIGNED BY THE PREZ, AND NOT CHALLENGED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.

You seem to think these are UNCONSITUTIONAL laws. Who is the one without knowledge? You 3 are all arguing the same point. You 3 are the people that are Unconstitutional...you want to overthrow our peacfully made laws and make your own government.



What was that?



Officially, after the President signs the bill, 10 days passes without a signature, or after a veto override, the bill is considered law. It is in effect at that moment. But in reality, it is, of course, more difficult than that. The law is transmitted to the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist assigns the law a number. The Archivist publishes the law on its own, as a pamphlet. This is known as a slip law. The slip law contains a lot more than just the text of the law itself, such as where it is be inserted in the United States Code, if at all; its legislative history; the committees through which it passed; and so on. In effect, the slip law is a historical document in itself. The law is also published in the United States Statutes at Large, The Statutes at Large is a collection of all laws passed in any given Congress.


www.usconstitution.net...


not law huh? Yeah, I just did that again to your argument!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.






That was a good chart and very creative. Never seen that on ATS before.


To bad it got removed.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
[more

Go for it! This will be a good reminder - just like our Bank Statements rolling in.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Absolutely. The very first entitlement program clock should be one that measures military spending, since that's where all the BS is anyway.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


nice try

try reading the us constitution national defense is one of the few programs that are constitutional

however even if by some miracle it gets cut the same amount of cash would still be spend on entitlements

and in the larger picture of havimg our current military as it is

is the only reason that the people in this country can generate all that wealth in the first place

you kill defense it would be a matter of days or weeks and this country would be pennyless.

but hey at least you got to spend all that money on entitlements
edit on 18-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i like this, then when they decide to approve billions more into these bull# wars we're in they'll see the damage they are doing.

just think if we hadn't spend so much money on Iraq, we in America could *gasp* invest better and smarter in education!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join