Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on April 02, 2003, 01:27:41 PM
-
"Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act several times. It would require each act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act or else the bill could not go forward. Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act (HR 175) went down to three crushing defeats.
Can we ask for more compelling evidence of Congress's contempt for our Constitution, or do you think our congressmen are simply reflecting the constitutional contempt of the people?"
--Walter Williams (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/archive.shtml)
Also Ten Most Outrageous Government Programs (http://www.humanevents.org/articles/03-10-03/outrageouslist.htm)
Hangtime, I remember your question about where we are oppressed unconstitutionally. Care to review this evidence? Good point as a start.
miko
-
HR 175 sounds like a good idea, i'm going to look into it, must be all them liberals in congress voting it down, it would limit govt power too much to suit them.
-
Liberals say that all their schemes are intended to 'promote the general welfare'. So even if this passes it would just add a formality to the process of making intrusive legislation.
ra
-
All this would do is add something to every bill that would say, "Pursuant to the authority granted under Article 1, Section 8".
Congress shows its contempt for the people by entertaining stupid feel-good bills like that one.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
All this would do is add something to every bill that would say, "Pursuant to the authority granted under Article 1, Section 8".
Congress shows its contempt for the people by entertaining stupid feel-good bills like that one.
"General Welfare" is pretty broad lol.
Judicial Review is your friend.
-Sik
-
Its redundant. The judiciary system decides if the legislation violates the constitution... not the legislative branch.
MiniD
-
Mini D: Its redundant. The judiciary system decides if the legislation violates the constitution... not the legislative branch.
Having three branches is redundant - we vote for the president, why bother with the rest, right?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Mini D: Its redundant. The judiciary system decides if the legislation violates the constitution... not the legislative branch.
Having three branches is redundant - we vote for the president, why bother with the rest, right?
miko
I like Tacos.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Its redundant. The judiciary system decides if the legislation violates the constitution... not the legislative branch.
Well said. Legislators would come up with some perfunctory language to stick in every bill to satisfy that Act. Only the judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution to test laws.
BTW, I like toast.
-
I think we should do the same in each of our posts...
(With thanks to HiTech for providing this forum)
Should preceed each post in a thread. This way we will not be thumbing our nose at the entity responsible.
Makes sense ... huh miko?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Mini D: Its redundant. The judiciary system decides if the legislation violates the constitution... not the legislative branch.
Having three branches is redundant - we vote for the president, why bother with the rest, right?
miko
well.. you've moved right past the original point into tardom.
Why don't you just come out and say what you were really trying to get at here miko. Quit beating around the bush.
MiniD
-
Miko doesn't appear to understand the premise for checks & balances... of course, I'm sure the idea escapes him since there is no such thing in communism.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Miko doesn't appear to understand the premise for checks & balances... of course, I'm sure the idea escapes him since there is no such thing in communism.
-SW
Sure there are checks and balances in Communist states. You have Demand but no Supply.
-
Is that a sarcastic reply?
edited out stupid comment.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Is that a sarcastic reply?
Yes.
-
"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge pinata -- a papier-mache donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budge and other goodies. The American voter is blindfoled and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard."
"The three branches of government number considerably more than three and ar not, in any sense, 'branches' since that would imply that there is something they are all attached to besides self-aggrandizement and our pocketbooks. ... Government is not a machine with parts; it's an organism. When does an intestine quit being and intestine and start becoming an *******?"
"Government isn't a good way to solve problems ... [G]overnment is concerned mostly with self-perpetuation and is subject to fantastic ideas about its own capabilities. ... [G]overnment is wasteful of the nation's resources, immune to common sense and subject to pressure from every half-organized bouquet of *******s. ... [G]overnment is distrustful of and disrespectful toward average Americans while being easily gulled by Americans with money, influence or fame."
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
"Whatever it is that government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government do it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy."
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."
- P. J. O'Rourke
-
hehehe Dune, nice post!