The Constitution?

As I said, you don't get to have it both ways and pick and choose. You are the one insisting it's the constitutional process that is supreme, so you get to take Citizens United vs. FEC, together with Roe vs. Wade, DC vs. Heller, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, etc.
They all are equally constitutional.

Don't like it - blame the founding fathers and those after them who haven't made the political system to your likeness. Or stop loosing elections.

Alternatively if you wanted your opinion on the constitutionality of something to really count you should've gone to Harvard or Yale law school, be really good at politics and you could've been one of the 9 people whose votes count. But you didn't do that and that is nobody else's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Show me in the Constitution where it says the Government can force you to purchase something you don't want. There is NOTHING remotely like that.

---

Yet, one year after the first ten amendments became law, the government passed a law forcing people to buy stuff they may not want or need. You'd think if it could be done back then without going into civil war it wasn't a big deal.

May be you should sit down and read that constitution you're talking so much about. It's not all that long, really. You will surely notice that it establishes a legislative branch of government tasked with coming up with laws. Which means that the constitution was never meant to be the sole law and all those laws to be written are about things that are not in the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

...
May be you should sit down and read that constitution you're talking so much about. It's not all that long, really. You will surely notice that it establishes a legislative branch of government tasked with coming up with laws. Which means that the constitution was never meant to be the sole law and all those laws to be written are about things that are not in the constitution.

---

Hang on. You mean to say that the people who wrote the constitution of the US over 200 years ago envisaged a necessity to create and establish new laws, or modify, amend, or remove old laws, over time?

It's a wonder, with all that ad-hoccery going on in the intervening years, that the US ever became the world superpower that it was/is. But I suppose what happened was that new laws, and modifications to old laws, never really happened until this President took office, and that is why things are so terrible now.

James.

Hmm, yeah I think you're onto something here. They didn't call it for nothing a 'do nothing congress'. Of course that was for centuries until the current socialist took office and then the congress became known as the 'do everything to destroy america as soon as possible'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

As I said, you don't get to have it both ways and pick and choose. You are the one insisting it's the constitutional process that is supreme, so you get to take Citizens United vs. FEC, together with Roe vs. Wade, DC vs. Heller, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, etc.
They all are equally constitutional.

Don't like it - blame the founding fathers and those after them who haven't made the political system to your likeness. Or stop loosing elections.

---

You act like yours is the only valid opinion. I assure you that isn't the case. I can pick and chose all I please. If you don't agree, that's fine too, but don't try to tell me that your opinion is any more valid than mine. You said you haven't voted in 10 years, so your political opinion has even less weight than mine since I NEVER miss an election.

I do participate in politics all that I am able. My opinion is that the present political climate is due to the unwillingness of the majority to stir themselves off of the couch and try to understand what is happening to the country.

We used to say no to things on principle, and not on feelings. That's why the sad state of affairs. Our public used to be informed. That's why the public schools were formed, to have an informed electorate.

Instead we allow teachers to stay at their jobs while they make stupid public statements like the elementary school shooting was a hoax, no wonder the kids coming out of our schools can't even read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

You act like yours is the only valid opinion. I assure you that isn't the case.

---

I am not arguing any opinion, I am arguing that what you are presenting is fairly inconsistent with logic and history. Not that there is an inherent problem with such inconsistency, it is just that your rigid position makes such inconsistencies rather ironical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I can pick and chose all I please.

---

Absolutely, and doing so invalidates your stance about the supremacy of the constitution. Picking completely opposite positions depending on what suits you at the moment is extremely ideological and unprincipled, and completely within your rights to do.


If you want to simply post a political 'opinion' to which you are entitled to, this is not the place for it. This is a place for discussions, so you should be presenting logical arguments and facts to defend your position, not slogans and heresay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I never said the people are stupid. What I said was they don't bother to educate themselves on what the issues are or where their candidates really stand on those issue or even what the really important issues are.

The Bill of Right is the second most important part of the Constitution. Both parts of the Constitution define what the Government CAN do and MOST importantly what it CAN'T DO.

Eroding the Constitution is how we wind up with the Government regulating EVERY part of our lives to the point they are dictating what kinds of light bulbs and toilets we are allowed to have. The US Constitution has nothing to do with getting rid of the Brits. They were already gone.

What it was for was to eliminate the tyranny that the people had just cast off. All the petty regulations we put up with now ARE TYRANNY.

The Government bans things based on emotion and politics, not facts.

Case in point, banning DDT. DDT is NOT toxic. It was the most wonderful pesticide ever invented. NO DATA ever proved a link between DDT and any problem with people are wildlife. The judge the reviewed the Data reporting to the EPA that there was NOTHING bad about DDT, but the EPA banned it anyway. This has resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of people to malaria.

Millions of people condemned to death for no reason but politics and bowing to extremist environmentalists. This is TYRANNY.

---

DDT changed the way the habitats of the waterways work. Eventually toxifying the streams and killing the fish. You really should have gone to elementary biology, like the governments scientific advisers did.

Well, you can add birds to the list of wildlife effected by DDT DDT and Birds too. I don't imagine the cumulative effect on humans from years of exposure is too good either.

Bob

Bob try typing DDT and the word MYTH along with it into Google to read the other side of the story..

Always remember there are usually 3 sides to every story the Pro the Con and the Truth you have to at least know the two so you can chose what is your truth...

Here's some info on the "other" side of the DDT story. Google scholar is a great resource. ddt birds myth - Google Scholar

However, as a scientist I am deeply concerned about the environment and strongly support the strengthening of the EPA, and have read extensively on the problems associated with global warming. I feel that government should indeed have increased power as far as concerns such as energy use regulation and emissions, as long as it is based in solid science.