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, 07:07 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
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?"
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court "charged" with original jurisdiction over state laws and constitutions and who "charged" the Supreme Court with this power?
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:07 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,515
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.
Unfortunately, it appears you will not get the answer to your question from those who pretend to be here to engage in a productive discussion.


JWK
Thanks from Sabcat
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:12 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,515
federal taxing to fund the arts

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post

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?"
So, instead of addressing what I wrote, you, like some others here, decide to attack me and not what I wrote.

JWK



They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:15 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court "charged" with original jurisdiction over state laws and constitutions and who "charged" the Supreme Court with this power?
Which case do you have a problem with?
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:17 AM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court "charged" with original jurisdiction over state laws and constitutions and who "charged" the Supreme Court with this power?
Which case do you have a problem with?
You didn't answer the question asked. Why?

JWK
johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:18 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of commie hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Which case do you have a problem with?
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court "charged" with original jurisdiction over state laws and constitutions and who "charged" the Supreme Court with this power?
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:30 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
So, instead of addressing what I wrote, you, like some others here, decide to attack me and not what I wrote.

JWK



They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.
Just pointing out that when reality and your perception are different.
Reality is correct, at least it's reality.

You're demanding that people justify reality, if you think that reality went off the rails, it's up to you to say where and when and how, for the rest of us, that's the way it is now, and will be until it changes.

Why don't you find the case where the court first crossed the line you imagine they crossed, and see what they said about that line.
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:33 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court "charged" with original jurisdiction over state laws and constitutions and who "charged" the Supreme Court with this power?
That would be article three.
I know you don't understand it, but apparently, the justices of the supreme court think they know better than you, deal with it.
goober is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:46 AM   #69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
So, instead of addressing what I wrote, you, like some others here, decide to attack me and not what I wrote.

JWK



They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.


Just pointing out that when reality and your perception are different.
.
Bullcrapsky! You attacked me instead of addressing what I wrote concerning federal funding of the arts and its attack on the protection guaranteed by the First Amendment.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

johnwk is offline  
Old July 4th, 2017, 07:47 AM   #70
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
You didn't answer the question asked.


JWK
So what? No one asked me a question. *shrug*
Hollywood is online now  
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 07:34 PM
Planned Parenthood Goes To Court To Fight Funding Cuts In Alabama LongWinded Current Events 62 August 31st, 2015 03:46 PM
planned parenthood still at it webguy4 Current Events 1 July 16th, 2014 11:38 AM
Planned Parenthood ad gmeyers1944 Abortion 44 September 5th, 2010 07:36 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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