|
Post by oldarmybear on Jan 23, 2020 19:26:31 GMT -5
The Federalist Papers are a collection of articles written by three of our founding fathers in support of the new Constitution of the United States. This kink goe to wiki for an expanded article with links to each of those papers. Follow this link to Wiki and the the links to each of the 85 Federalist Papers. Enjoy, read and learn... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 12, 2020 12:59:35 GMT -5
I can respond. The Constitution also made clear the LIMITATIONS ( many of them ) of the Federal government. 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.-10th Amendment
wl:I can respond. TubaIndeed. But ya' gotta stay away from the "H" topic, Sparky. It's forbidden by our den-mother. Beware. wl:The Constitution also made clear the LIMITATIONS ( many of them ) of the Federal government. "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.-10th Amendment"
Tuba:There is no permission in the Tenth Amendment for the states to ignore the rest of the Constitution when they choose. The amendment is clear about how far the states can go: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it ["it" being the Constitution itself] to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, as much as the "states-rights" crowd thinks the Tenth Amendment is the holy-grail by which American states can overrule the Federal government when they feel like it, is stretching the meaning of the amendment to suit parochial interests. It's the same crowd that thinks the Tenth Amendment gives broad permission to the states to codify invidious laws inspired by local prejudices, religious superstitions and petty priggishness that limit the birthrights of American citizenship. Neither the Federalist Papers nor the Constitution (or the Tenth for that matter) propose a weak Federal government. Just the opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 19:53:08 GMT -5
I can respond. The Constitution also made clear the LIMITATIONS ( many of them ) of the Federal government. 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.-10th Amendment
wl:I can respond. TubaIndeed. But ya' gotta stay away from the "H" topic, Sparky. It's forbidden by our den-mother. Beware. wl:The Constitution also made clear the LIMITATIONS ( many of them ) of the Federal government. "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.-10th Amendment"
Tuba:There is no permission in the Tenth Amendment for the states to ignore the rest of the Constitution when they choose. The amendment is clear about how far the states can go: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it ["it" being the Constitution itself] to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, as much as the "states-rights" crowd thinks the Tenth Amendment is the holy-grail by which American states can overrule the Federal government when they feel like it, is stretching the meaning of the amendment to suit parochial interests. It's the same crowd that thinks the Tenth Amendment gives broad permission to the states to codify invidious laws inspired by local prejudices, religious superstitions and petty priggishness that limit the birthrights of American citizenship. Neither the Federalist Papers nor the Constitution (or the Tenth for that matter) propose a weak Federal government. Just the opposite. 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.-10th Amendment IF it isn't stated, then the STATES and the PEOPLE reserve their rights OR they get preference. IF the states, who made UP the approving votes ON the Constitution, didn't delegate a particular power to the federal government, AND if the Constitution had no words or phrases limiting a certain power to the states, THEN it REMAINED as reserved to the STATES or the PEOPLE. Repetition of your nonsense will NOT make that nonsense come out correct.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 12, 2020 23:17:35 GMT -5
wl:I can respond. TubaIndeed. But ya' gotta stay away from the "H" topic, Sparky. It's forbidden by our den-mother. Beware. wl:The Constitution also made clear the LIMITATIONS ( many of them ) of the Federal government. "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.-10th Amendment"
Tuba:There is no permission in the Tenth Amendment for the states to ignore the rest of the Constitution when they choose. The amendment is clear about how far the states can go: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it ["it" being the Constitution itself] to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, as much as the "states-rights" crowd thinks the Tenth Amendment is the holy-grail by which American states can overrule the Federal government when they feel like it, is stretching the meaning of the amendment to suit parochial interests. It's the same crowd that thinks the Tenth Amendment gives broad permission to the states to codify invidious laws inspired by local prejudices, religious superstitions and petty priggishness that limit the birthrights of American citizenship. Neither the Federalist Papers nor the Constitution (or the Tenth for that matter) propose a weak Federal government. Just the opposite. 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.-10th Amendment IF it isn't stated, then the STATES and the PEOPLE reserve their rights OR they get preference. IF the states, who made UP the approving votes ON the Constitution, didn't delegate a particular power to the federal government, AND if the Constitution had no words or phrases limiting a certain power to the states, THEN it REMAINED as reserved to the STATES or the PEOPLE. Repetition of your nonsense will NOT make that nonsense come out correct.
Exactly my point. The states can not practice to violate the Federal Constitution. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment was not intended to emasculate the Federal government's power or to give individual states overarching authority. The Federalist Papers didn't propose a weak Federal government either.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Feb 13, 2020 1:44:29 GMT -5
Is "Sparky" a name that Wales uses when he talks down to people? His point, is to present his righteousness and how smart he is, ouch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 9:04:00 GMT -5
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.-10th Amendment IF it isn't stated, then the STATES and the PEOPLE reserve their rights OR they get preference. IF the states, who made UP the approving votes ON the Constitution, didn't delegate a particular power to the federal government, AND if the Constitution had no words or phrases limiting a certain power to the states, THEN it REMAINED as reserved to the STATES or the PEOPLE. Repetition of your nonsense will NOT make that nonsense come out correct.
Exactly my point. The states can not practice to violate the Federal Constitution. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment was not intended to emasculate the Federal government's power or to give individual states overarching authority. The Federalist Papers didn't propose a weak Federal government either. The Constitution was SPECIFICALLY designed to limit federal power and to enumerate EXACTLY what it's limits were The States would NOT have joined otherwise as they weren't going to surrender THEIR authority or sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 13, 2020 12:35:11 GMT -5
Exactly my point. The states can not practice to violate the Federal Constitution. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment was not intended to emasculate the Federal government's power or to give individual states overarching authority. The Federalist Papers didn't propose a weak Federal government either. The Constitution was SPECIFICALLY designed to limit federal power and to enumerate EXACTLY what it's limits were The States would NOT have joined otherwise as they weren't going to surrender THEIR authority or sovereignty.
I don't dispute that the Constitution limits the power of federal government. Dead southern racists notwithstanding, it also enumerates a host of powers, too. In any case neither it, nor the Federalist papers, propose a weak federal government subservient to individual states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 12:43:54 GMT -5
The Constitution was SPECIFICALLY designed to limit federal power and to enumerate EXACTLY what it's limits were The States would NOT have joined otherwise as they weren't going to surrender THEIR authority or sovereignty.
I don't dispute that the Constitution limits the power of federal government. Dead southern racists notwithstanding, it also enumerates a host of powers, too. In any case neither it, nor the Federalist papers, propose a weak federal government subservient to individual states. ANY powers NOT enumerated TO the government are then reserved by the States AND the people! the Constitution proposes LIMITED government AND Wallace is exactly correct, background aside.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 13, 2020 13:22:35 GMT -5
I don't dispute that the Constitution limits the power of federal government. Dead southern racists notwithstanding, it also enumerates a host of powers, too. In any case neither it, nor the Federalist papers, propose a weak federal government subservient to individual states. ANY powers NOT enumerated TO the government are then reserved by the States AND the people! the Constitution proposes LIMITED government AND Wallace is exactly correct, background aside. The "weak federal-government" trope puzzles me. Like you I applaud that it is limited, but it's a big country. Most of us already have smaller governments, too. My township has one. My county has another one -- just a bit larger. My state has an an even larger one. But, I don't trust that my township's Board-of-Trustees is qualified to negotiate nuclear-bomb treaties with Iran, or my county to build a reliable aircraft-carrier, or my state government to be the disinterested party in disputes between any of the other 49. I believe, the United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. I don't want to emasculate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 16:16:09 GMT -5
ANY powers NOT enumerated TO the government are then reserved by the States AND the people! the Constitution proposes LIMITED government AND Wallace is exactly correct, background aside. The "weak federal-government" trope puzzles me. Like you I applaud that it is limited, but it's a big country. Most of us already have smaller governments, too. My township has one. My county has another one -- just a bit larger. My state has an an even larger one. But, I don't trust that my township's Board-of-Trustees is qualified to negotiate nuclear-bomb treaties with Iran, or my county to build a reliable aircraft-carrier, or my state government to be the disinterested party in disputes between any of the other 49. I believe, the United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. I don't want to emasculate it. What YOU "believe" and what IS are two separate issues. The language and delineations are clear. Federal government is LIMITED to WHAT the Constitution SAYS it is limited to and that's it. The rest, printed or not are resaved unto the states and people. 10th amendment.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 14, 2020 12:43:21 GMT -5
The "weak federal-government" trope puzzles me. Like you I applaud that it is limited, but it's a big country. Most of us already have smaller governments, too. My township has one. My county has another one -- just a bit larger. My state has an an even larger one. But, I don't trust that my township's Board-of-Trustees is qualified to negotiate nuclear-bomb treaties with Iran, or my county to build a reliable aircraft-carrier, or my state government to be the disinterested party in disputes between any of the other 49. I believe, the United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. I don't want to emasculate it. What YOU "believe" and what IS are two separate issues. The language and delineations are clear. Federal government is LIMITED to WHAT the Constitution SAYS it is limited to and that's it. The rest, printed or not are resaved unto the states and people. 10th amendment. :::sigh:::: Jeesh, Sparky, relax for chrissake. For the umpty-twooth time: I don't disagree that Constitution defines the Federal government's limitations. Nonetheless, it also gives it great power to fulfill the "more perfect union's" mission as it was carefully enumerated in the Preamble: "...to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty".
No amendment has given the states broad permission to behave contrary to the Constitution when it suits their parochial interests or local prejudices. None emasculates federal authority. Indeed, each amendment gives the federal government the power to enforce them, eh? Look it up. Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers proffer a weak federal government. Just the opposite. The United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. That includes citizens right-wingers and Bible-thumpers don't like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 14:49:18 GMT -5
What YOU "believe" and what IS are two separate issues. The language and delineations are clear. Federal government is LIMITED to WHAT the Constitution SAYS it is limited to and that's it. The rest, printed or not are resaved unto the states and people. 10th amendment. :::sigh:::: Jeesh, Sparky, relax for chrissake. For the umpty-twooth time: I don't disagree that Constitution defines the Federal government's limitations. Nonetheless, it also gives it great power to fulfill the "more perfect union's" mission as it was carefully enumerated in the Preamble: "...to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty".
No amendment has given the states broad permission to behave contrary to the Constitution when it suits their parochial interests or local prejudices. None emasculates federal authority. Indeed, each amendment gives the federal government the power to enforce them, eh? Look it up. Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers proffer a weak federal government. Just the opposite. The United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. That includes citizens right-wingers and Bible-thumpers don't like. Incorrect: 1- the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are 2- the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. 3- the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 14, 2020 16:48:26 GMT -5
:::sigh:::: Jeesh, Sparky, relax for chrissake. For the umpty-twooth time: I don't disagree that Constitution defines the Federal government's limitations. Nonetheless, it also gives it great power to fulfill the "more perfect union's" mission as it was carefully enumerated in the Preamble: "...to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty".
No amendment has given the states broad permission to behave contrary to the Constitution when it suits their parochial interests or local prejudices. None emasculates federal authority. Indeed, each amendment gives the federal government the power to enforce them, eh? Look it up. Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers proffer a weak federal government. Just the opposite. The United States Constitution, in unmistakably emphatic language, created a robust and powerful secular federal-government as the rightful and ultimate custodian and protector of all the birthrights of American citizenship -- for each of the third-of-a-billion folks it governs in 2020. That includes citizens right-wingers and Bible-thumpers don't like. Incorrect: 1- the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are 2- the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. 3- the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate.
wl:the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are Tuba:I have not written that the federal government can ignore those limitations. On the other hand, I have repeatedly written that the states can't practice to contradict the many powers -- specific and implied -- the Constitution gives the federal government. wl:the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. Tuba:I agree. But it did not propose that state and municipal governments were un-limited, instead. Nope. They are restrained by the same limitations. They have no Constitutional permission to emasculate the many powers given the federal government when it suits their local interests or prejudices, either.Them's the rules. wl:the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate. Tuba:Good point. The authors of the Constitution didn't "recognize" the rights of several groups: slaves, indentured-servants, indigenous people, women and children, for example. But those oversights have been corrected with several Amendments. An important one is the Fourteenth. It guarantees all the birthrights-of-citizenship --especially each citizen's equality before the law -- without regard to a citizen's, or group of citizens', numbers or popularity. Even a hated minority of one cannot be denied all the birthrights-of-American citizenship. Ain't the Constitution grand, Sparky?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 17:39:44 GMT -5
Incorrect: 1- the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are 2- the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. 3- the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate.
wl:the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are Tuba:I have not written that the federal government can ignore those limitations. On the other hand, I have repeatedly written that the states can't practice to contradict the many powers -- specific and implied -- the Constitution gives the federal government. wl:the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. Tuba:I agree. But it did not propose that state and municipal governments were un-limited, instead. Nope. They are restrained by the same limitations. They have no Constitutional permission to emasculate the many powers given the federal government when it suits their local interests or prejudices, either.Them's the rules. wl:the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate. Tuba:Good point. The authors of the Constitution didn't "recognize" the rights of several groups: slaves, indentured-servants, indigenous people, women and children, for example. But those oversights have been corrected with several Amendments. An important one is the Fourteenth. It guarantees all the birthrights-of-citizenship --especially each citizen's equality before the law -- without regard to a citizen's, or group of citizens', numbers or popularity. Even a hated minority of one cannot be denied all the birthrights-of-American citizenship. Ain't the Constitution grand, Sparky? 1- The TENTH AMENDMENT states that if the States had not delegated a particular power to the federal government and IF the Constitution doesn't specifically state a prohibition on a particular power by the States, then the STATES retain the powers that are unstated or implied, along with the people. 2- Read #1 3- you didn't read entirely as I said "groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate." Meaning that from the list you provided, the writers KNEW legitimate groups who they just denied. THAT is VERY different from what I said above "...ill informed people today want to make legitimate." MEANING establishing new categories based on dysfunctional disorders and abnormal behavior as a distinct minority or class. Specifically legitimizing homosexuals as "akin" to the list you provided. they were NOT akin then and they aren't akin today, despite the attempts of irresponsible and ill informed people today. Constitutional protections are not applicable to homosexuals simply because of their homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 14, 2020 18:41:00 GMT -5
wl:the Amendment SPECIFICALLY are there to remind the FEDERAL government what their LIMITS are Tuba:I have not written that the federal government can ignore those limitations. On the other hand, I have repeatedly written that the states can't practice to contradict the many powers -- specific and implied -- the Constitution gives the federal government. wl:the Constitution was made specifically for LIMITED GOVERNMENT as spelled out , along wish the many distributions of power among the branches. Tuba:I agree. But it did not propose that state and municipal governments were un-limited, instead. Nope. They are restrained by the same limitations. They have no Constitutional permission to emasculate the many powers given the federal government when it suits their local interests or prejudices, either.Them's the rules. wl:the Constitution never recognized groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate. Tuba:Good point. The authors of the Constitution didn't "recognize" the rights of several groups: slaves, indentured-servants, indigenous people, women and children, for example. But those oversights have been corrected with several Amendments. An important one is the Fourteenth. It guarantees all the birthrights-of-citizenship --especially each citizen's equality before the law -- without regard to a citizen's, or group of citizens', numbers or popularity. Even a hated minority of one cannot be denied all the birthrights-of-American citizenship. Ain't the Constitution grand, Sparky? 1- The TENTH AMENDMENT states that if the States had not delegated a particular power to the federal government and IF the Constitution doesn't specifically state a prohibition on a particular power by the States, then the STATES retain the powers that are unstated or implied, along with the people. 2- Read #1 3- you didn't read entirely as I said "groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate." Meaning that from the list you provided, the writers KNEW legitimate groups who they just denied. THAT is VERY different from what I said above "...ill informed people today want to make legitimate." MEANING establishing new categories based on dysfunctional disorders and abnormal behavior as a distinct minority or class. Specifically legitimizing homosexuals as "akin" to the list you provided. they were NOT akin then and they aren't akin today, despite the attempts of irresponsible and ill informed people today. Constitutional protections are not applicable to homosexuals simply because of their homosexuality.
No Amendment raises the several states' authority to ignore the United States Constitution or cancel any of the powers, specific and implied therein. Moreover, every citizen is entitled to the birthrights-of-citizenship regardless of the gender of his or her romantic and sexual partner. The Constitution doesn't mete out its protects and benefits by testing numbers, popularity or, and especially, whether or not the the Constitution's "writers" had a group that gives you the icks in mind 242 years ago. Where'd you get the preposterous idea it did, Sparky.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2020 22:09:10 GMT -5
1- The TENTH AMENDMENT states that if the States had not delegated a particular power to the federal government and IF the Constitution doesn't specifically state a prohibition on a particular power by the States, then the STATES retain the powers that are unstated or implied, along with the people. 2- Read #1 3- you didn't read entirely as I said "groups that at the writing were outside the mainstream that irresponsible and ill informed people today want to make legitimate." Meaning that from the list you provided, the writers KNEW legitimate groups who they just denied. THAT is VERY different from what I said above "...ill informed people today want to make legitimate." MEANING establishing new categories based on dysfunctional disorders and abnormal behavior as a distinct minority or class. Specifically legitimizing homosexuals as "akin" to the list you provided. they were NOT akin then and they aren't akin today, despite the attempts of irresponsible and ill informed people today. Constitutional protections are not applicable to homosexuals simply because of their homosexuality.
No Amendment raises the several states' authority to ignore the United States Constitution or cancel any of the powers, specific and implied therein. Moreover, every citizen is entitled to the birthrights-of-citizenship regardless of the gender of his or her romantic and sexual partner. The Constitution doesn't mete out its protects and benefits by testing numbers, popularity or, and especially, whether or not the the Constitution's "writers" had a group that gives you the icks in mind 242 years ago. Where'd you get the preposterous idea it did, Sparky. 1-the IMPLIED powers go to the States, that is what the 10th AMENDMENT says. 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.-10th Amendment "... no matter a person's view on constitutional interpretation, there's no doubt that amendments to the Constitution have changed the course of the American legal system. The first ten amendments became known as the Bill of Rights, which includes many of the freedoms we associate so closely with the United States - such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. These constitutional rights protect the lives of individuals from interference by the government..." constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html
2- through the Thousands of years of Man's history, homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered out of the sphere of normal and on the side of abnormal , until recently. Across MANY spectrums it is STILL considered as such. It was at the time and was never intended or considered as distinction meriting legal protection. It wasn't even talked or thought about doing as such. Revisionsists will incorrectly have you believe otherwise.
|
|