eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
if youve read the decision insteadof only the facts you would realize I am NOT helping your case my friend.  lol.
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
damn it ignore me Im under the clock
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State. . . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but . . . affects it only incidentally and indirectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … Knight_Co.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom

JohnG@lt wrote:

That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State. . . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but . . . affects it only incidentally and indirectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … Knight_Co.
that was the same court that said "separate but equal"  and claimed that the United States was a christian nation

but since you want to bring up relevant court cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 

its the law.  there is no should or ought or could be.  it is.
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
also, as to your wiki link


"Although the decision was never expressly overturned, the Court later retreated from this position in a series of cases that defined various steps of the manufacturing process as part of commerce. Eventually, E.C. Knight came to be a precedent narrowed to its precise facts, with no force whatsoever."

since you dont know what this means it pretty much states that, while this ruling has not been explicitly overturned, the facts in the case are so that no future cases brought before the court would warrant the necessity to overturn.


youre killing me smalls

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-09-15 07:31:32)

Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
its like you gave me a link to dred scott in support of an argument for the United States' modern views on black people being 3/5ths human
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State. . . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but . . . affects it only incidentally and indirectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … Knight_Co.
that was the same court that said "separate but equal"  and claimed that the United States was a christian nation

but since you want to bring up relevant court cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 

its the law.  there is no should or ought or could be.  it is.
How status quo of you. Yes, every law enacted by Congress is absolutely permanent and has never been overturned based on its constitutionality or for other reasons. Please. Just because it is doesn't mean it should be. I didn't take you for such a socially conservative republican.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

its like you gave me a link to dred scott in support of an argument for the United States' modern views on black people being 3/5ths human
Yes, and quoting case law from 1835 is completely relevant too
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
it is when they havent been reversed my friend
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
you act as if calling me a republican is an insult.  Im non partisan anti tea party anti palin
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

it is when they havent been reversed my friend
Anyway, libertarians tend to have a strict constitutionalist mindset when it comes to the law. Paul is no exception.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

it is when they havent been reversed my friend
Anyway, libertarians tend to have a strict constitutionalist mindset when it comes to the law. Paul is no exception.
only when it fits their agenda.  How can you have a strict constitutionalist interpretation when one part you want to follow till your dying day

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.


  while another part you say is bullshit and should be ditched. 
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;



inconsistent.
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

it is when they havent been reversed my friend
Anyway, libertarians tend to have a strict constitutionalist mindset when it comes to the law. Paul is no exception.
only when it fits their agenda.  How can you have a strict constitutionalist interpretation when one part you want to follow till your dying day

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.


  while another part you say is bullshit and should be ditched. 
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;



inconsistent.
Completely consistent. The commerce clause, as I said, is meant to preserve free trade among the respective states. This is commerce between the states.

On the other hand, the states can regulate businesses within their borders as they see fit as long as they aren't subsidizing them for competition against other states etc.

It's not that hard to understand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
BTW, this is fucking lawlz.

Positions
[edit] Abortion

O’Donnell opposes abortion. She previously has been a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.[46]
[edit] Gun Rights

O’Donnell favors gun rights and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association[47] [48]
[edit] Masturbation

O’Donnell opposes masturbation and has said, “"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell

Holy
Shit.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 07:57:23)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom
which why i fail to see how you dont understand it.  The commerce clause is not what YOUR interpreation is, it is what the COURT'S interpretation is.  Your interpretation of the commerce clause is at odds with 200 years of American jurisprudence
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5498|foggy bottom

JohnG@lt wrote:

BTW, this is fucking lawlz.

Positions
[edit] Abortion

O’Donnell opposes abortion. She previously has been a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.[46]
[edit] Gun Rights

O’Donnell favors gun rights and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association[47] [48]
[edit] Masturbation

O’Donnell opposes masturbation and has said, “"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell

Holy
Shit.
christ thats fucking scary

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-09-15 07:58:56)

Tu Stultus Es
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6644|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

BTW, this is fucking lawlz.

Positions
[edit] Abortion

O’Donnell opposes abortion. She previously has been a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.[46]
[edit] Gun Rights

O’Donnell favors gun rights and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association[47] [48]
[edit] Masturbation

O’Donnell opposes masturbation and has said, “"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell

Holy
Shit.
Well, I guess I see now why Bill Maher was saying that he was happy O'Donnell won the primary.  Coons should be a shoe-in.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
Yeah harmor, this is a real win for you...

At Sunday’s Tea Party rally in Washington, I overheard a few effusive endorsements of Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, the longshot conservative running against the very moderate Republican Congressman Mike Castle for Vice President Joe Biden's old Senate seat. The race was once considered an easy layup for Delaware Republicans, but with the rise of O’Donnell, a crackpot of the first order, it looks increasingly likely that Democrat Chris Coons will be packing the U-Haul for D.C. in November. As stats wizard Nate Silver points out, if O’Donnell wins today’s primary, the Republicans lose the seat in November: “Whereas Mr. Castle is nearly a 95 percent favorite against the Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, according to last week’s FiveThirtyEight forecasting model, Ms. O’Donnell would have just a 17 percent chance of winning a race against Mr. Coons.”

And the intellectual case against O’Donnell is overwhelming. A précis for those who have avoided the Delaware drama: O’Donnell lied about attending a Master’s degree program at Princeton University; claimed that her political enemies are creeping in the bushes outside her house; is opposed to the sinister habit of masturbation; is a supporter of the “ex-gay” movement, despite the inconvenient revelation that her former staffer Wade Richards “returned” to homosexuality and denounced those peddling “cures” for his sexuality; filed a $6 million lawsuit against the conservative group ISI for “gender discrimination"; was denounced by her former campaign manager as a “fraud” who uses campaign donations to pay rent and utility bills; and has implied that her Republican opponent is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

As the former head of the clumsily named Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT), O’Donnell was the Tipper Gore of the 1990s, attending lewd and lascivious rock concerts just to tell stoned, Satanist teenagers that they were going to hell. “Walking through the crowd I also noticed more pentagrams than crosses around the teenage necks,” she gasped. At a 1997 music festival in Washington, D.C., the Catholic killjoy “distributed thousands of brochures with information on the failure rate of condoms, on AIDS, on sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, pornography and the movement of former homosexuals.”

In a piece for the Washington Post, O’Donnell told of one emotional breakthrough she made with a young concertgoer: “She was a girl of about 14 wearing cutoffs and a string-bikini top. A boy, hopefully her boyfriend, was draped around her neck absurdly with each hand firmly planted on her breasts. She did not look as if she was enjoying herself. As they passed me, I handed her the brochure, along with another one on "How To Say No." Something must have clicked inside her. She stopped and pushed his hands away.” A true story or an extra feature from the Beyond the Valley of the Dolls DVD? You decide!

Or take this clip from Bill Maher’s old television show Politically Incorrect (which, upon re-watching, one will discover was pretty politically correct), during which the True Conservative Fun Destroyer explains to her fellow panelists that she wouldn’t lie to protect Jews during the Second World War (“Anne Frank? Oh, you mean that girl that lives in the attic?”) because “deception” is immoral. Either way, it’s a moot question, O’Donnell says, because “God would provide a way to do the right thing,” despite not having providing a way to do the right the thing between the years 1941-1945.

But the moderate Mike Castle is unacceptable to many professional Tea Party adherents—radio host Mark Levin, for instance, is accusing all who doubt O’Donnell’s qualifications as David Frum-like deviationists—who would rather a reliably liberal Democrat in the Senate than an insufficiently conservative Republican. They insist that good conservative foot soldiers plump for unqualified (and unstable) candidates because they aren’t “RINOs,” because they wink-and-galvanize but wouldn’t know Milton Friedman from Milton Berle. One protester I spoke with on Sunday, holding a sign adorned with giant photos of Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan (the “Gipper and the Grizz”), said that Palin is the best conservative hope for 2012, pointing out that she was “getting better” at addressing both basic policy issues and the adoring crowds of Tea Party activists. If she can identify a national newspaper by 2012, she’s qualified to run the Western world.

And while the screeching Stalinists and ideological purity tsars of talk radio denounce left-wing magazines and blogs like The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Powerline as sell-out squishes, and as Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer is deemed the moral equivalent of  Paul Robeson, O’Donnell trudges forward towards a primary victory. And the Republicans towards a November defeat.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/delaw … l-disaster
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 11:36:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6644|North Carolina
Palin, part Deux...  it would seem.

It seems like the GOP hasn't had a decent female leader since Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Ticia
Member
+73|5574

JohnG@lt wrote:

O’Donnell opposes masturbation and has said, “"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell
Oh no
Does it mean masturbation will become illegal in Delaware if she wins the general erection?
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6593
To bad Tipper gore wasn't present during the 2000 campaign, why did the media forget all about her ?
I would have loved to hear her debate Dee Snyder again.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-15 13:47:50)

Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6593

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

BTW, this is fucking lawlz.

Positions
[edit] Abortion

O’Donnell opposes abortion. She previously has been a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.[46]
[edit] Gun Rights

O’Donnell favors gun rights and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association[47] [48]
[edit] Masturbation

O’Donnell opposes masturbation and has said, “"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell

Holy
Shit.
Well, I guess I see now why Bill Maher was saying that he was happy O'Donnell won the primary.  Coons should be a shoe-in.
bill Maher huh ? Ya he's a good bet for political coverage. It would be fun to re run all his comments on Iraq with some hind sight
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6644|North Carolina

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To bad Tipper gore wasn't present during the 2000 campaign, why did the media forget all about her ?
I would have loved to hear her debate Dee Snyder again.
Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either.  Then again, I never voted for Gore to begin with.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6593

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To bad Tipper gore wasn't present during the 2000 campaign, why did the media forget all about her ?
I would have loved to hear her debate Dee Snyder again.
Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either.  Then again, I never voted for Gore to begin with.
It may be before your time but her " Ban music with naughty words crusade " is a comedy movie just waiting to be made. She was a lot of fun back then.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard