Will a democrat controlled congress cause inflation? - Page 7 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 03:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman
I agree with the message, the words confuse me. The 10th says "unless this document says you can, you can't", keeping the federal government from deciding that "if it doesn't say I can't, I can." what congress, the courts, and the executive branch have chosen to do is ignore it completely.
Yes.

Precedent.

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 07:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman
I don't know if that's your version of a smokescreen when you know that you're wrong, if it's a joke, or if you really don't have a clue. If you'll Google "US Constitution" you can actually read it. Don't read it right before bedtime, though, it tends to cause nightmares on the left.
Ha! Nightmares on the Left? I almost spit my Coke all over my keyboard, that is so funny. The ACLU has been beating your fucking brains out with the Constitution for the last forty years - you guys on the right ignored every word of it up until then. We are all equal before the law? (1865) Bullshit, you on the right said, if you were black. Well, we fixed your ass on that, didn't we? Separation of Church and State? Bullshit you said, with your forced prayers, and your creches and crosses on public property and your Ten Commandants in our courthouses. Fixed your ass on that too, didn't we? Rights for criminal defendents? The hell you said. Well, that worked out for you too, didn't it? Every advance in human justice the last forty years have been because of the Left's defense and insistence on the US Constitution being enforced. Who fears it now? Spying Republican Fascists, quivering impeached "Ten Commandment" judges, that's who.

The Tenth Amendment was responsible for slavery. It gave state's the right to regulate and dictate what it's citizen's basic human rights were. It resulted in a house divided against itself, a country half slave, and half free. 600,000 men died because of the accursed thing. When it was over, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment castrated the States. These Amendments essentially regulate the States, telling them what they can and cannot have in their constitutions. The only rights they have is what the Federal Government tells them they can have, and lets give thanks for that, after a history of 200 years of murder, rape, kidnapping, racial discrimination and all the other ugliness that those who wish to paint lipstick on that particular pig call "states rights" wish to hide from.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 12-15-2006 at 07:03 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #63 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 07:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Yes.

Precedent.

B
Hogwash. The COTUS is not ruled by "precedent", the newer amendments supercede the older ones, in fact any first year law student would tell you the legal concept is even called "supersession".

The 14th Amendment makes a revolutionary change: we are no longer citizens of a state, we are citizens of the United States. Prior to that a person was a "citizen of Virginia" for example. Well, that's over with.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any of the States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You and Ed want to cherry pick the thing. It is a document that progresses to where we are today. At the same time the 10th Amendment was written, the COTUS also said a black man was 3/5s of a man. At this point in time, both of these anachronisms are essentially moot. Google up "United States v. Darby":
"
Quote:
United States v. Darby (1941)

United States v. Darby (1941) was a highly influential case in the history of the relationship between federal and state law. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court set a groundbreaking precedent by allowing federal interference with local wage regulations in Georgia.

In many cases of the last half of the twentieth century—including the important Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) and other decisions upholding modern antidiscrimination laws—the U.S. Supreme Court broadly construed federal authority to regulate local activities under the constitutional provision that gives the U.S. Congress the power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several states." These decisions, in turn, built on key precedents handed down by the Court during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. During his first term of office, President Roosevelt sought to respond to the Great Depression by pushing through Congress a program of reform that deeply injected the federal government into the regulation of such matters as working conditions in local factories. Relying on constitutional arguments about state autonomy, the Supreme Court invalidated several of these laws in 1935 and 1936.

After President Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936, however, the Court dramatically shifted direction and began to reject states' rights challenges to federal initiatives founded on the commerce power. A critical juncture came in the Darby case, which involved the prosecution of a lumber manufacturer in Statesboro for violating the minimum-wage and maximum-hour protections put in place by the recently enacted federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Overruling earlier precedent, the Court in 1941 held that the law was a proper exercise of the congressional commerce power, including its application to local manufacturing concerns.

The Court also ruled in Darby that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not violate the Tenth Amendment's reservation to the states of powers not delegated to Congress. In rejecting this challenge, the Court described the Tenth Amendment as stating "but a truism," thus substantially limiting the usefulness of that provision as a means for raising constitutional arguments based on state autonomy from federal control. In the end, Roosevelt-era cases like Darby ushered in an era of such extreme judicial deference to assertions of congressional authority that no federal law was found to exceed the commerce power for the next fifty-four years.



Dan T. Coenen, University of Georgia

Go here for links:
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/n....jsp?id=h-2936

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 12-15-2006 at 07:30 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #64 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 07:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Hogwash. The COTUS is not ruled by "precedent", ...
Who said, "ruled"?

They only supersede because that's how the Supremes so choose.

As long as the Amendment is on the books, subsequent Supremes can rediscover it at their leisure.

Just takes time and will.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #65 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,523
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Hogwash. The COTUS is not ruled by "precedent", the newer amendments supercede the older ones, in fact any first year law student would tell you the legal concept is even called "supersession".

The 14th Amendment makes a revolutionary change: we are no longer citizens of a state, we are citizens of the United States. Prior to that a person was a "citizen of Virginia" for example. Well, that's over with.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any of the States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You and Ed want to cherry pick the thing. It is a document that progresses to where we are today. At the same time the 10th Amendment was written, the COTUS also said a black man was 3/5s of a man. At this point in time, both of these anachronisms are essentially moot. Google up "United States v. Darby":
"

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/n....jsp?id=h-2936
You are delusional.

I am not cherry picking. A first year law student will not tell you that there has been any amendment which made the 10th null and void by superceding it. The 10th says exactly what I quoted a few posts ago (then repeated in a dummed down version for you to understand). Read the whole thing, read the history that went into it's writing (not it's more recent interpretations or evolutions made by socialist judges along the way), and you'll understand that our federal government was never intended to be what it has become . . . not setting wages, not handing out welfare checks, not a retirement service, not . . .
edfreeman is offline  
post #66 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 08:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Let's see, I post court cases that back up what I am saying, legal analysises and point out the simple logic of the 14th Amendment, and you say "I am delusional", offering nothing more than the thin gruel of what you claim some law student would say? Why don't you go ask one, you twit.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #67 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 08:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Who said, "ruled"?

They only supersede because that's how the Supremes so choose.

As long as the Amendment is on the books, subsequent Supremes can rediscover it at their leisure.

Just takes time and will.

B
Even the Supremes cannot ignore the 14th Amendment. Tell me, since the States are prohibited from passing laws that defines the rights it citizens can have, and since any law they pass has to be uniform with both federal law and the laws of the other states, just what "states rights" do they get to have? I mean, give me an example of what you think could be legislated as a "state's right"?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #68 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 08:38 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,523
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Let's see, I post court cases that back up what I am saying, legal analysises and point out the simple logic of the 14th Amendment, and you say "I am delusional", offering nothing more than the thin gruel of what you claim some law student would say? Why don't you go ask one, you twit.
You made the first reference to the first year law student and what they'd say about the 14th superceding the 10th. You ponied up one court case which also states that the court went against precendent in its ruling . . . guess either that ruling or the ones which were precedent were wrong . . . There's way more to the 10th Amendment than slavery, it was a limit on how big and how much control the central government can have.
The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, promises it back to us in exchange for keeping whoever is in office in their jobs, is corrupt (and easy to get to for the "lobbyist" crooks, in one place, remote from the constituents). The fear of it becoming what it has is exactly why the constitution is written like it is, including the still valid 10th amendment.

Last edited by edfreeman; 12-15-2006 at 08:54 PM.
edfreeman is offline  
post #69 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 09:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Even the Supremes cannot ignore the 14th Amendment....
They needn't ignore it, but simply determine that it's imperatives are of lesser interest to liberty than the 10th. If that decision is reached then the rest of your argument collapses.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #70 of 70 (permalink) Old 12-15-2006, 09:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
If wishes were horses, beggers would ride.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Tire inflation nkpnkp W124 E,CE,D,TD Class 14 05-15-2006 03:05 PM
    How much PSI for Tire Air Inflation? 1996_S500 W140 S-Class 9 01-20-2006 03:45 PM
    Oil filter and inflation. bgoin R170 SLK-Class 10 02-27-2004 09:14 PM
    Help - Inflation pressures Jacques R170 SLK-Class 13 04-10-2003 05:09 PM
    Central inflation system Valentino G-Class 4 01-17-2003 09:55 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome