[James Bomb]

Originally Posted by ChiefStrategist

So says you, and your opinions mean just as much as the waitress' at IHOP.

Ooh, nice IHOP reference. Zing. Did you bag their groceries or something?

Reverend Shakedown and Reverend Race Pimp are just a bunch of activists, and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are meniacal, diabolical, government controling who singlehandedly shape the political atmosphere in America? That is comedic gold James, simply comedic gold

I don't see anybody offering Constitutional amendments to appease Jackson or Sharpton lately. In fact, those two are constantly whining about how the Democrats take them for granted.

Stand up, Speak out against Tobacco....because your pile of ridiculous monkey crap said^^^

English please.

Is like all the dumbfuck advertisements I see from truth.org or standup.org. Quit being a douche and stop trying to legislate what people do behind closed doors

Smoking bans, zoning laws, noise ordinances! The world is full of bogeyman when you're a nutty, right-wing whackjob.

Yes James, it is serious. Serious enough that people in washington, both democrat and republican are making serious attempts to erode the constitution and write new, more invasive laws...rendering individual rights and liberties obsolete. Just look at what that retard Sohei JUST posted after you.

James, this shit is scary^^^^^^^^. You are on the same side of the fence this guy is on.

Uh, yeah, sure I am. Unfortunately, somehow I deleted that post I never made, nor ever thought about making, where I agreed with him.

Again according to you, the real threats to democracy are smoking bans and food stamp programs, not domestic wiretapping and trying American citizens in military courts. It's a wonder how you are able to post here so much and avoid the black helicopters at the same time.

[ChiefStrategist]

Originally Posted by somethingclever

I see you are still actively engaging one of your most important rights as an American ChiefStrategist---your right to be wrong.

Enter McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) and Article I, § 8 Clause 18---AKA the necessary and proper clause.

Touche'.....However the courts McCullough descision was to take currency out of the states hands and federalize the banking system by creating the federal reserve and adopting a national currency.

Notice how I said out of STATES hands and federalize it. Health Care is in private business' hands, along with private practitioners. The states do not have control of heath care services in the United States, therefore you are federalizing private industry.

From Wiki.....

It is important to note that the clause, unlike the enumerated clauses, does not in itself grant Congress any new powers. Instead, it widens the powers that Congress has under the other clauses. For example, in the McCulloch case mentioned above, the elastic clause was not intepreted to grant Congress the authority to establish a national bank. It merely allows the Congressional power to coin money and the power to control interstate commerce to be interpreted to allow Congress the power to charter a national bank.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

or if you prefer....

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by somethingclever

To convince your opponents in open debate of the correctness of your position, it is important that you do not go further in an exchange than is necessary to adequately advance same. Here you have gone to far.

The Constitution is not out dated. The fact that it was written hundreds of years ago does nothing to detract from its brilliance. The Framers were very well educated---true scholars of political philosophy. Your contempt for our Constitution is both unjustifiable and offensive.

The point is that you cant make the argument that Universal Healthcare is criminal becase its not specifically spelled out in bold in the Constitution. All these strict constructionists think if something isnt specifically spelled out, italicized and underlined in the Constitution than it should never be considered or implemented. The Constituion was written in language and with meaning specific to its time. You cant apply it literally 100% of the time to today. And the bottom line is that since it doesnt mention UH we shoudl not consider implementing it is just fucking stupid.

[kartaron]

The problem is that the Constitution, the Electoral College, and all that shit conceived of in 1642 is OUTDATED

Originally Posted by ChiefStrategist

James, this shit is scary^^^^^^^^. You are on the same side of the fence this guy is on.

Between this and the recent discussion in the 'Billionares use off shore accounts to illegally conceal 70B per year' thread:

...I feel that property rights should only be extended up until the point where they start becoming a detriment to the community... I personally feel property rights in this country have gone to [sic] far

I am seriously concerned.