Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree65Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 2nd, 2016, 06:28 AM   #91
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The Supreme Court found (9-0) that the power to regulate interstate commerce covered minimum wage law.

Of course, they don't have Jimmy Boy's deep understanding of the TRUE meaning of the constitution, maybe he should lend them his secret decoder ring...or maybe it's time for an amendment, making Internet Crazies the final arbiter of what the constitution means...
And goober's diverting and running has launched.

I think we have moved beyond the point of needing a Supreme Court, law schools, or universities for that matter. All we need to do or defer to anyone with an Internet connection, a computer, and Putin loving liberals to support the myriad ways to crunsh the rule of law.
Thanks from caconservative

Last edited by Jimmyb; October 2nd, 2016 at 06:42 AM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 07:07 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 7,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
And goober's diverting and running has launched.

I think we have moved beyond the point of needing a Supreme Court, law schools, or universities for that matter. All we need to do or defer to anyone with an Internet connection, a computer, and Putin loving liberals to support the myriad ways to crunsh the rule of law.
Jimmy, if you ever actually posted information, you might have a chance of not being regarded as an ignorant troll.
However, "enlighten us as to the Philadelphia convention" isn't information, it isn't an argument, it's just trolling...

Why don't you enlighten us as to why the interstate commerce power doesn't apply to minimum wage?
goober is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 07:17 AM   #93
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Jimmy, if you ever actually posted information, you might have a chance of not being regarded as an ignorant troll.
However, "enlighten us as to the Philadelphia convention" isn't information, it isn't an argument, it's just trolling...

Why don't you enlighten us as to why the interstate commerce power doesn't apply to minimum wage?
Probably because interstate commerce was limited to the movement of goods and the founders knew the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce.

See if Google can help you with the Annapolis convention and the Mt. Vernon Compact.
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 08:30 AM   #94
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
She should not have been allowed to own it. The state should have owned it according to her ideology.
"according to her ideology"... what ideology might that be and please explain how you know that Clara adheres to that ideology.
Thanks from Clara007
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 09:57 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I did not make an error.

I have provided two simple pieces of evidence: the origination of the welfare clause and the purpose of the neccessary and proper clause. Neither have been addresssed. The welfare clause came from two places and was inserted into the Constitution maintaining the orginal meaning, and the author of the neccessary and proper clause explained the purpose and intent of the clause. These are two very simple obstacles that need to be specifically addressed before advancing to the grammar of the first paragraph and the stated limitations of the welfare clause.
JimmyB, most of us prefer the philosophical view-points that (we believe) better support our arguments. I do not hypocritically pretend that I never have or will behave similarly.

Jimmy, you keep hopping between “strict” and “narrow” interpretations of the U.S. Constitution regarding the same questions within this same thread.

First you claim the federal minimum wage rate is unconstitutional due to explicit interpretation of U.S. Constitution’s text; then when it’s pointed out the text actually supports the that rate’s legal existence, you want to refer to some unspecified other documents and pursue an extremely broad interpretation of what you prefer to be the meaning of the constitution’s text.
The fabric of our constitution’s language cannot survive the extent of stretching you wish to subject it to.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from
Legal Dictionary | Law.com .
“strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society”.

Last edited by Supposn; October 2nd, 2016 at 09:59 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 05:20 PM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 7,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Probably because interstate commerce was limited to the movement of goods and the founders knew the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce.

See if Google can help you with the Annapolis convention and the Mt. Vernon Compact.
That's not the way nine justices of the Supreme Court saw it...

But then, "probably" isn't really an argument is it?
So is McDonalds engaged in interstate commerce?
goober is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 05:49 PM   #97
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Note that Clara said she paid, not was forced to pay by a pack of pols across the country. That is the difference in living a free country, which is pretty much gone and most do not know the concept, and a statist country. Putin would approve.


You really haven't much comprehension of life under Putin.

Reports: Russia clamping down on free speech

Putin Clamps Down on Russian Activists, Free Speech

Putin Signs Measure Revoking Religious Freedom: ‘Most Restrictive in Post-Soviet History’
Thanks from Hollywood
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 05:59 PM   #98
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
JimmyB, most of us prefer the philosophical view-points that (we believe) better support our arguments. I do not hypocritically pretend that I never have or will behave similarly.

Jimmy, you keep hopping between “strict” and “narrow” interpretations of the U.S. Constitution regarding the same questions within this same thread.

First you claim the federal minimum wage rate is unconstitutional due to explicit interpretation of U.S. Constitution’s text; then when it’s pointed out the text actually supports the that rate’s legal existence, you want to refer to some unspecified other documents and pursue an extremely broad interpretation of what you prefer to be the meaning of the constitution’s text.
The fabric of our constitution’s language cannot survive the extent of stretching you wish to subject it to.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from
Legal Dictionary | Law.com .
“strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society”.
Quote:
JimmyB, most of us prefer the philosophical view-points that (we believe) better support our arguments. I do not hypocritically pretend that I never have or will behave similarly.
The only philosophical argument is why would the founders, who just risked their lives fighting a war over a government's plenary power to tax, turn around and give another government plenary power to tax.

Quote:
Jimmy, you keep hopping between “strict” and “narrow” interpretations of the U.S. Constitution regarding the same questions within this same thread.
I have not hopped between “strict” and "narrow" interpretations.

Quote:
First you claim the federal minimum wage rate is unconstitutional due to explicit interpretation of U.S. Constitution’s text; then when it’s pointed out the text actually supports the that rate’s legal existence, you want to refer to some unspecified other documents and pursue an extremely broad interpretation of what you prefer to be the meaning of the constitution’s text.
The fabric of our constitution’s language cannot survive the extent of stretching you wish to subject it to.

Respectfully, Supposn
You are referring to textualism, which I have not addressed as of yet and make my case of the intent of the general welfare clause, which is also different than orginalism. The unspecified documents are unspecified for a reason: if one does not know where the general welfare clause originated and its purpose and that it was carried over to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that is telling of a lack of understanding of the intent of the general welfare clause.

The fabric of the Constitution’s language is what it is and means what it means. You are attempting to stretch it into something it does mean or its intent. I have only conveyed the founder’s intent and meaning.

Quote:
Excerpted from
Legal Dictionary | Law.com .
“strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone think
This definition is textualism, not orginalism. Interpretation is much more complicated than throwing out a few methods. It involves formalism, instrumentalism, the context of the use of phrases and words in other parts of the Constitution, and the general understanding of words, phrases, and concepts of the day.
Thanks from caconservative

Last edited by Jimmyb; October 3rd, 2016 at 07:22 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 06:01 PM   #99
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
That's not the way nine justices of the Supreme Court saw it...

But then, "probably" isn't really an argument is it?
So is McDonalds engaged in interstate commerce?
Anyone with an IQ of around seven, an internet connection, and a computer can post "nine justices of the Supreme Court saw it..." What you cannot do and will never do is reconcile any court ruling with the Constitution.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2016, 06:04 PM   #100
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Anyone with an IQ of around seven, an internet connection, and a computer can post "nine justices of the Supreme Court saw it..." What you cannot do and will never do is reconcile any court ruling with the Constitution.
LOL...not his job. *shrug*
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
exceo, fastfood, mcdonald, reality, revealed, terrifying, workers



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Labor Ruling McDonald's Has Been Dreading Just Became A Reality LongWinded Current Events 29 August 31st, 2015 01:39 PM
McDonald's to hike pay for US restaurant workers RNG Current Events 22 April 4th, 2015 08:28 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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