Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree98Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 4th, 2017, 04:21 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Well, since you say "the Supreme Court has heard challenges and decided in favor of Federal involvement in health care", why not quote the Court where it supports its opinion with the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution which gives context to its text?


The bottom line is, the Court has not quoted anything from our Constitution, nor its documented legislative intent, to confirm the notion that Congress has power to enter the states and tax the people therein to finance an entity such as Planned Parenthood, which is the subject of the thread, when Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


And that's your opinion, which I don't believe is referenced in the constitution, however, it does mention the supreme court, and so the court's opinion is more of a guide to how the constitution really works, the the opinion of a random internet poster.

And while the failure to quote a relevant constitutional phrase counts so heavily at the Supreme Court of the Online Fantasy Constitution, apparently it doesn't seem to phase the actual Supreme Court.

What is my "opinion"? Quote my exact words and state your objection.


And, you never provided a relevant quote from the Court where it supports its opinion with the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution which gives context to its text.

I do know pinko/progressive/liberal judges and Justices love to supplant their personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, but that is not how our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" works.


JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


Last edited by johnwk; July 4th, 2017 at 04:24 AM.
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 04:31 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Show me where it doesn't, give me the ruling that says what you fantasize it says.
You can't, and your silly time frame proves it.
This is the 21st century, saying "up until the 19th century this didn't happen" means the horse has been out of the barn for a hundred years, and no one spotted this until the Internet Fantasy Constitution Brigade got on the case.
Very impressive....


Goober, WHY do you bother responding to these guys? Jimmy is a robot who will keep repeating the same thing. John won't answer either.
It's pointless and frustrating. Jimmy won't post a link. John posts some ridiculous thread "WHY CAN'T we pass legislation" and expects valid arguments??

The questions/posts been asked and answered ad nauseum. You are NOW in a circuitous argument going nowhere.
Clara007 is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 04:53 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Goober, WHY do you bother responding to these guys? Jimmy is a robot who will keep repeating the same thing. John won't answer either.
It's pointless and frustrating. Jimmy won't post a link. John posts some ridiculous thread "WHY CAN'T we pass legislation" and expects valid arguments??

The questions/posts been asked and answered ad nauseum. You are NOW in a circuitous argument going nowhere.

Translation: Clara obfuscates rather than engage in a productive discussion. But what can be expected when progressives and democrats recoil from the "rule of law" and a written constitution designed to preserve and protect our nation's population from the evils of democracy?


JWK


Democracies " …have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Madison, Federalist No. 10
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 05:00 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Show me where the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a state law or a state constitution or where just one Founder stated that the Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over a state law or a state constitution or where any found era Supreme Court ruling acknowledged this concept.

Show me any history of the Supreme Court's opinion on what a state law means or a state constitution means other than in the twentieth century.
"other than in the 20th century?"

It doesn't work like that, the fact is, the Supreme Court is all over that stuff, and has been for a hundred years.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean a thing, it's there and it's staying there.
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 05:20 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Translation: Clara obfuscates rather than engage in a productive discussion. But what can be expected when progressives and democrats recoil from the "rule of law" and a written constitution designed to preserve and protect our nation's population from the evils of democracy?


JWK


Democracies " …have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Madison, Federalist No. 10


John, you are a liar. I have been a member of this forum for 2 1/2 years. During that time I have engaged in any number of productive discussions. Some were humorous. Some were heated. Some were constructive and some were pointless. Sometimes I walked away--best advice from IT.
Like many others who post on DTT I have been called about every name in the book. My profession has been misrepresented and defamed. My family has been denigrated. My gender has been challenged and since I'm about the only woman who keeps posting on this Boys Club site, I think I've held my ground pretty well.
I never obfuscate. I am not unclear. I am not obscure or unintelligible. I present my opinions/facts/stats WITH links and sources--almost always. I have apologized repeatedly for mistakes I've made. I have never intentionally lied or misled anyone on DTT.
AND now I'm calling you out, John. So bring it on. Disprove what I have posted. I challenge you. AND stop being a jerk just because someone disagrees with you.
Clara007 is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 05:35 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Translation: Clara obfuscates rather than engage in a productive discussion. But what can be expected when progressives and democrats recoil from the "rule of law" and a written constitution designed to preserve and protect our nation's population from the evils of democracy?


JWK


Democracies " …have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Madison, Federalist No. 10
Translation:
Obama was born in Kenya, the moon landings were faked, gayness is something that is taught, Saddam had WMDs, Global Warming is a Chinese plot and people who believe that shit, are the best qualified to interpret the constitution, even when it's obvious that their interpretation is complete bullshit.
Thanks from RNG
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 05:48 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,234
Federal taxing to fund the arts

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
"other than in the 20th century?"

It doesn't work like that, the fact is, the Supreme Court is all over that stuff, and has been for a hundred years.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean a thing, it's there and it's staying there.
I believe what is not liked is an assumption of power not granted by our Constitution, e.g., Congress laying and collecting taxes to fund the production of Art [the National Endowment for the Arts]. And what did one of our forefathers say with regard to this?


"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

Not only is such funding not authorized by our federal Constitution, but taxing and spending for this purpose, has given us such things as Andres Serrano's anti-Christian bigotry called "P*** Christ", Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”, Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater, and Shakespeare In Central Park Depicting the violent murder of President Trump all of which is a plain violation of a working person's 1st Amendment protections who is taxed to finance such crap. Let me explain.


In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley that NEA grants are constitutional if content does not offend "...general standards of decency..." But the Court not only ignored the absence of a power granted to Congress by our Constitution to fund the promotion of art, it likewise ignored the carefully limited wording in our Constitution granting power to Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts and how may this be done? by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


So, how does federal funding of the arts violate a taxpayer’s guarantee that Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech? Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance A’s expressions and feelings in public, while B’s financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund A’s speech and expressions.


In clear and simple language, federal funding of the arts provides a group selected and made privileged by folks in government, most of whom are sexual deviants, with a powerful megaphone to express their opinions and feelings, while such funding is forcefully taken from those who may object to the expressions and opinions of sexual deviants spewed out in a federally funded venue.



JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
___ Justice Story

Last edited by johnwk; July 4th, 2017 at 10:33 AM.
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 06:00 AM   #58
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
"other than in the 20th century?"

It doesn't work like that, the fact is, the Supreme Court is all over that stuff, and has been for a hundred years.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean a thing, it's there and it's staying there.
Show me where the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a state law or a state constitution or where just one Founder stated that the Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over a state law or a state constitution or where any found era Supreme Court ruling acknowledged this concept.

Show me any history of the Supreme Court's opinion on what a state law means or a state constitution means other than in the twentieth century.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 06:02 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
I believe what is not liked is an assumption of power not granted by our Constitution, e.g., Congress laying and collecting taxes to fund the production of Art [the National Endowment for the Arts]. And what did one of our forefathers say with regard to this?


"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

Not only is such funding not authorized by our federal Constitution, but taxing and spending for this purpose, has given us such things as Andres Serrano's anti-Christian bigotry called "P*** Christ", Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”, and Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater, which in fact is a plain violation of a working person's 1st Amendment protections who is taxed to finance such crap. Let me explain.


In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley that NEA grants are constitutional if content does not offend "...general standards of decency..." But the Court not only ignored the absence of a power granted to Congress by our Constitution to fund the promotion of art, it likewise ignored the carefully limited wording in our Constitution granting power to Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts and how may this be done? by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


So, how does federal funding of the arts violate a taxpayer’s guarantee that Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech? Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance A’s expressions and feelings in public, while B’s financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund A’s speech and expressions.


In clear and simple language, federal funding of the arts provides a group selected and made privileged by folks in government, most of whom are sexual deviants, with a powerful megaphone to express their opinions and feelings, while such funding is forcefully taken from those who may object to the expressions and opinions of sexual deviants spewed out in a federally funded venue.



JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
___ Justice Story
And yet the Supreme Court, the entity actually charged with making the determination under the constitution said the NEA is fine.

You are saying there is logic and methods to determine what the constitution allows, but if your logic and methods fail to predict actual outcomes, what's wrong is your logic and methods, not the actual outcomes.
Demanding that others justify reality within an obviously faulty framework of thinking is the hallmark of a madman.

And you can come up with all sorts of quotes that appear to support your argument, but if your argument isn't supported by reality, your argument fails.

To quote a wise man.
"When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?"
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 06:04 AM   #60
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Goober, WHY do you bother responding to these guys? Jimmy is a robot who will keep repeating the same thing. John won't answer either.
It's pointless and frustrating. Jimmy won't post a link. John posts some ridiculous thread "WHY CAN'T we pass legislation" and expects valid arguments??

The questions/posts been asked and answered ad nauseum. You are NOW in a circuitous argument going nowhere.
I defer to Texas state senator Robert Gammage on January 8, 1974, from the Record of Proceedings, Texas Constitutional Convention: Official Journals, -July 30, 1974, Volume 2 Constitutional Convention of Texas Pg. 1843:
Gammage: Mr. Hall, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bill, can’t, ending, funding, introduced, parenthood, planned, type



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most Americans Want To Keep Funding For Planned Parenthood And Obamacare skews13 Current Events 29 January 30th, 2017 10:35 AM
Obama To Protect Planned Parenthood Funding Permanently skews13 Healthcare 7 September 10th, 2016 06:34 PM
Planned Parenthood Goes To Court To Fight Funding Cuts In Alabama LongWinded Current Events 62 August 31st, 2015 02:46 PM
planned parenthood still at it webguy4 Current Events 1 July 16th, 2014 10:38 AM
Planned Parenthood ad gmeyers1944 Abortion 44 September 5th, 2010 06:36 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.