T1B

National health care is perfectly legal under the 16th Am and Article 4 section 3 clause 2 of the constitution.
Same for National welfare.
As for borders they are to be regutated by the national government per Article 1 section 8.

Help a simple layman to understand. What is the exact wording you are referring to that allows our government to take income from some citizens for the purpose of redistributing it to others?

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

This is why I hate lawyers.

WTF does that even mean? Congress can basically do whatever the fukk it feels like?

Might as well just wipe our collective arse with the 10th I guess then.

Oh....wait, we already did. My bad.

If that vague pile of shit says it can forcefully enroll me into a healthcare system, I guess it can tell you that you can't smoke weed.

She how this fukking works corky?

You are a fukking hypocrite. You want government mandates when they suit you.

I just want a fukking government that leaves me the fukk alone as much as possible and will only step in when someone is else is doing something that may harm me. It really is a pretty simple concept. Leave people along, let them associate freely with whomever they chose so long as they are not doing harm to someone else or their property.

We are very overdue for a constitutional convention.

Just hope our society hasn't degraded to the point where they will let assholes like MS run it.

ML@Coyote wrote:Help a simple layman to understand. What is the exact wording you are referring to that allows our government to take income from some citizens for the purpose of redistributing it to others?

What part of the constitution don't you understand? Sounds like all of it.
The 16th amendment gives the national gov the right to tax your income. Other parts also allow for the national giv to levy duties and whatnot.
The property clause which holic just cited says they can do whatever the fuck they want with their property. Money is property.
So to recap: They can take your money and give it to whomever they want, be it blackwater or orphans.
How do people not know what the constitution says?

You can get as pissy as you want but it says they can't regulate intrastate commerce so they can't regulate California pot in California. Of course they whacked that goose with Wickard. It also says they can give their property to whomever they want. The property clause is not how they funded Obamacare but it could easily be used to fund single payer. (If anyone felt like making the argument, which most people won't)

Moving Sale wrote:So to recap: They can take your money and give it to whomever they want

Again, what are the exact words in the constitution that say this? Expert that you are, you should be able to cite a sentence or two that states in essence, "The government can take your money and give it to whomever it pleases for whatever reason it sees fit." I'm not saying your necessarily wrong. Just show me exactly where it says this. This ought to be easy enough for you to do.

Are you fucking retarded?
The 16 amendment say they can tax you.
Art 4 say they can dispose of property anyway they want.
Read the fucking thing you stupid tard.

So, according to you the 16th Amendment was put into place to provide the government with a means to tax incomes and then spend the proceeds however it sees fit? Did it ever occur to you that the primary reason why we fought for independence from Britain was to put an end to "taxation without representation?" You can spout off your bullshit interpretations of the Constitution all you want, but the fact is that the amount of taxes collected and what the government does with the proceeds is to be carried out according to the wishes of the citizens. If tax money is being collected and spent in a manner that is against the wishes of citizens, then it is unconstitutional. But it figures you wouldn't understand this.

ML@Coyote wrote:So, according to you the 16th Amendment was put into place to provide the government with a means to tax incomes and then spend the proceeds however it sees fit? Did it ever occur to you that the primary reason why we fought for independence from Britain was to put an end to "taxation without representation?" You can spout off your bullshit interpretations of the Constitution all you want, but the fact is that the amount of taxes collected and what the government does with the proceeds is to be carried out according to the wishes of the citizens. If tax money is being collected and spent in a manner that is against the wishes of citizens, then it is unconstitutional. But it figures you wouldn't understand this.

Nothing new here ML. MS is a Marxist. We are all serfs here to serve the government. They can do whatever they want, but it does any him when they come after his weed.

The really ironic part here is the hatred he and his ilk have for police, all the while being in favor of a very strong central government that can only exist with even higher levels of stormtrooper law enforcement.

He reminds me of that faggot econ professor in NYC that was recently interviewed by Tucker. He was on paid leave for tweeting some sort of "dead cops" bullshit. Described himself as an anarco-communist. I am still trying to figure out what the fukk that is. The two terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum. They don't want anarchy and don't really give a fukk about individual rights, they just want to burn down the system and put their "juiced up badge monkeys" in charge.

You really are an idiot ML. You have representation, unless you live in DC or PR and the like. And if you don't loke how they spend it you vote them out you don't cry that what they did was unconstitutional just because it was against yoir wishes. It's only unconstitutional if you can find something in the constitution that makes it illegal, like it's against the 1st am ot whatnot. Any one that graduated from HS civics knows this. What is your excuse?

You can put words in my mouth all you want holic, but I never said I wanted a strong central gov. In fact, I have said just the opposite. You really are a POS, let me guess you voted for the orangepedobear.

Moving Sale wrote:You really are an idiot ML. You have representation, unless you live in DC or PR and the like. And if you don't loke how they spend it you vote them out you don't cry that what they did was unconstitutional just because it was against yoir wishes. It's only unconstitutional if you can find something in the constitution that makes it illegal, like it's against the 1st am ot whatnot. Any one that graduated from HS civics knows this. What is your excuse?

No, you're the "idiot." For representatives to tax and spend money against the wishes of the people is flat out unconstitutional because it's against the wishes of the people. You've got your head sooo far up your ass analyzing words and sentences out of context that you miss the whole point. One of the major intentions of our Constitution is that representatives are supposed to represent. Never did the framers of the Constitution have in mind, as you say, that tax money would be spent however politicians damn well pleased.

Moving Sale wrote:You can put words in my mouth all you want holic, but I never said I wanted a strong central gov. In fact, I have said just the opposite. You really are a POS, let me guess you voted for the orangepedobear.

Healthcare is a major chunk of our economy. A government that oversees it is by definition a strong central government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ML@Coyote wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You really are an idiot ML. You have representation, unless you live in DC or PR and the like. And if you don't loke how they spend it you vote them out you don't cry that what they did was unconstitutional just because it was against yoir wishes. It's only unconstitutional if you can find something in the constitution that makes it illegal, like it's against the 1st am ot whatnot. Any one that graduated from HS civics knows this. What is your excuse?

No, you're the "idiot." For representatives to tax and spend money against the wishes of the people is flat out unconstitutional because it's against the wishes of the people. You've got your head sooo far up your ass analyzing words and sentences out of context that you miss the whole point. One of the major intentions of our Constitution is that representatives are supposed to represent. Never did the framers of the Constitution have in mind, as you say, that tax money would be spent however politicians damn well pleased.

Your representatives passed the 16th am you stupid fuck. Politicians ARE your representatives. Did you even GO to 12th grade civics?

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You can put words in my mouth all you want holic, but I never said I wanted a strong central gov. In fact, I have said just the opposite. You really are a POS, let me guess you voted for the orangepedobear.

Healthcare is a major chunk of our economy. A government that oversees it is by definition a strong central government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe by your definition but you have to remember you are retarded.

Moving Sale wrote:Politicians ARE your representatives.

Exactly my point. You read a few words, but you lack insight.

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You can put words in my mouth all you want holic, but I never said I wanted a strong central gov. In fact, I have said just the opposite. You really are a POS, let me guess you voted for the orangepedobear.

Healthcare is a major chunk of our economy. A government that oversees it is by definition a strong central government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe by your definition but you have to remember you are retarded.

I may be retarded, but I still have a reasonable grasp on simple English. You put the federal or national or whatever the full you want to call it government in charge of a yyyyyyyuge chunk of our economy, it is strong.

How the full did you graduate from 4th grade, never mind law school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I lack insight into what? How dumb you are? No I'm pretty sure I know.

smackaholic wrote:...but I still have a reasonable grasp on simple English.

If you set that bar any lower, it would be a trip hazard...

smackaholic wrote: I may be retarded, but I still have a reasonable grasp on simple English. You put the federal or national or whatever the full you want to call it government in charge of a yyyyyyyuge chunk of our economy, it is strong.

I'm not sure that was all in English, but what we were discussing was the national government's legal abilities. All I said was they can spend their money how they wish as long as they don't violate the 1st am and the like. If you want to complain about that bring it up with Madison.

Moving Sale wrote:No I'm pretty sure I know.

Just like you know that our traffic laws are put into place in order to entrap illegal immigrants?

Give me a break.

I never said that.
Care to lie again?

While discussing illegal immigration, you wrote, "...making it impossible to function as an undocumented alien w/o breaking the law is by design. It is done in order to control them..."

I wrote, "I always thought traffic laws were put into place to make our streets safe."

And you replied, "Yeah but you are an idiot."

But you are an idiot. That in no way meant I agreed with your assertion, only that is was stupid. Which is actually the opposite of agreeing with you.

Dinsdale wrote:There's a shit-ton of different college sports. Precisely 2 of them generate revenue, which finance all of the others.

Or in Wisky's case, 3 of them.

schmick wrote:But oregon buying recruits wasn't worthy of bowl bans, vacated losses or lost scholarships once nike money got involved

They vacated your losses? Did that make them wins?

We're not talking about (rightly) vacated wins. We're talking about "vacated losses". Which you should feel free to explain.