“it isn't really relevant as to which is more effective, and guns are not meant only for home protection. There have been a number of times here in LA I would have felt a lot more comfortable with a gun in my car or on my person.”
“oh you're exactly right, oh self righteous one. Nowhere does it say "Hey, Feds, you can't pay for disaster relief."
Somehow, a man as brilliant as yourself, has never read the 10th amendment and has no clue as to how the constitution even functions as a legal document.
The burden is on you to find authorization for this use of federal tax dollars. If you can't find authorization for disaster relief (which the constitution absolutely never mentions) then guess what- the tenth amendment denies the federal government the right to take part in it.
Simply put, spending a single federal cent on disaster relief violates the tenth amendment rights of the states and the people. They have no more authority to partake in disaster relief than they do in cutting the lawn of the governor's mansion.
Maybe you should read it before you go shooting your mouth off in such an arrogant / ignorant / self righteous tone.
Then again you're a liberal. Shameless arrogance is all people like you or Colbert know, so I guess you're just sticking with what you know.”
DCGeorge76 on Jan 3, 2012 at 04:12:28
“Au contraire mon fraire, it is you that does not understand the constitution as a functioning document. This is well settled constitutional law since United States vs. Sprague (1931) in which the court ruled: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers...."
I suggest you also read all that "stuff" before the amendments and then take a 12th grade government class to explain it to you. I don't have the time or the desire to do it myself. Without an understanding of the Supreme Courts interpretations of things like the Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause and etc. your pocket constitution ill equips you to debate this matter.
I may be self righteous but when one is as well informed as I it's hard not to be. Good luck discovering what most of us learned in high school.”
“Very simple- tenth amendment "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."
Building roads / bridges is not authorized anywhere in the constitution for the federal government to be involved in. The same goes with disaster relieft. By right of the 10th amendment, it is strictly the right and responsibility of the state facing the disaster to take care of it, or rely on outside states for their voluntary contributions. The same goes with roads. Just follow the constitution, it is very clear on these issues.
New Orleans showed us first hand that private citizens and the state are more well equipped to help anyway, so even real life application vindicates the constitution's position on this authority.
The general welfare clause is simply not good enough.
What if someone believes the nation would be better off if everyone had hi-def TV and wrote a spending bill to give everyone said TV using tax dollars? How about a nice stereo or a nicer computer? You could use that lame argument to spend tax money on absolutely anything, that's why it's such a poor litmus test.
If that's the only sentence you can find that even remotely supports the purpose for your proposed spending, that is simply not good enough for me, or for Paul for that matter.”
havbrush on Jan 3, 2012 at 07:21:23
“Are you delusional? The state of Louisiana and private certainly didn't handle Katrina damage adequately at all. And if Bush had had competent people in place at FEMA instead of You're-doing-a-wonderful-job-Brownie, the federal government would have handled it well like it did under Clinton's FEMA head.”
Viper on Jan 3, 2012 at 03:25:03
“The constitution does not say you have the right to have sex with anyone, get married or have kids, specfically... either.
It list what we cant do, but is very open about what can be done..
The Constution does not say that the federal governmnet cant build roads. And roads affect by the way interstate commerce, whihc does allow the FED government to take such action along with transportation is necessary for a defense and the general welfare of the epople.
Almost immdieATELY, THE FIRSt cOngress APPROVED ROADS. Paid for surveying roads and looking for trade routes.. Paid for inter coastal waterways for barge traffic.
The intercontinental railroad.. did you every take a history course.
Pls remember what you wanted was the Articles of Confederation, they failed.. quickly. The property rights over civil rights fight and states rights ended with the civil War..
“oh I'm sorry, when Tunisia become the 51st state?
And the general welfare clause is simply not good enough. It's purely opinion, and a weak one at that.
What if someone believes the nation would be better off if everyone could play a musical instrument, so we use tax dollars to buy everyone an instrument of their choice with 6 months of free lessons?
You can use that clause for everything, that's why it's such a poor litmus test. If that's the only sentence you can find that even remotely supports the purpose for your proposed spending, that is entirely too loose of an interpretation.”
pdxist on Jan 3, 2012 at 05:09:59
“You weren't talking about Tunisia. You said Ron Paul "opposed federal aid for his own district when it was flooded- why? BECAUSE IT'S AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS." I disagreed by pointing out that it's not. Keeping citizens alive when they are in immediate danger of death is as basic to the general welfare as one can get. You can't literally scream "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" at people and then, only when called out, explain, "well, except for that part of the constitution."”
Viper on Jan 3, 2012 at 03:17:23
“As legal as deciding you can draft only males, tell them what to wear, eat and when to sleep and how to cut their hair and what they get paid...
Viper on Jan 3, 2012 at 03:15:53
“If the people agree to that , then yes its legal, as legal as agreeing that public schools are in the interest of the general welfare of the people or NASA, or the FDA or the EPA or the FAA...or the FBI.. or the Smithsonian or Washington monument.. where does it say we can have national parks?
Its not the clause that defines it, its what Cingress that we elect passes that defines it.
I bet foriegn aid, is justifed as making the world safer.. maybe not true..But then the Marshal plan did... are you against that. Libertarians called the GI bill, welfare also.
“yeah... and the guy also opposed federal aid for his own district when it was flooded- why? BECAUSE IT'S AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.
Sam, you are absolutely pathetic. We're going to waste time talking about his "no" vote on Tunisia and not ONCE have I seen mention of the fact that he voted "no" the bank bailouts while a certain charismatic Senator suspended his presidential campaign for push it through.
But I mean, why report anything in context when you're a partisan liberal hack?”
DCGeorge76 on Jan 3, 2012 at 03:22:15
“Tell me, exactly where does the constitution forbid disaster relief? It doesn't but I'm interested to know which part you're misinterpreting.”
mech126 on Jan 3, 2012 at 02:20:17
“Ahh, the only senator who suspended his presidential campaign was John McCain, and you also should learn to proof read first......”
pdxist on Jan 3, 2012 at 02:19:40
“"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" -Art 1 Sec 8
Preventing the nation from drowning and citizens from dying is a pretty obvious example of providing for the general welfare of the United States.”
Viper on Jan 3, 2012 at 02:12:27
“Show me where adiding a disaster area would be unconstutional in the Constituion..link pls..
So if repairing a road or bridge damges by a storm is unconstutional than building one with federal money woul also be unconstiutional?
The Constitution says that congress may tax and pass laws for the general welfare of the people.. was building a sea wall around galveston after the 1900 Hurricane , not for the general welfare of the people?
Jtt on Jan 3, 2012 at 02:08:53
“Why come to a liberal site and advocate for a N U T like RP anyway?
Thats another thing. RP would let the economy collapse.”
“not true. He controls the entire executive branch as president and he can close countless bureau's and agencies with the stroke of a pen.
He can also, by executive order, end every military conflict the day he takes office. He can withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and close every foreign military base by executive order as well.
He can also block horrific legislation such as the martial law garbage Obama just signed by forcing it to be passed by a 2/3 congressional override which has not happened with one single piece of legislation in decades.
So, in short my dear Eeyore, there is A LOT he can do as president.”
“Good God. Okay, maybe you need a refresher in how American law works.
Federal law supersedes state law. I live in California, where the STATE government will not arrest or prosecute you for smoking marijuana if you have a medical marijuana card, HOWEVER the DEA still has the authority to arrest you REGARDLESS of your state's legality of drugs.
In other words, no, it is not legal in your state. Your state has declared it legal, but the federal government does not bow down to state law. Federal law prohibits marijuana.”
“he is on video and record going back decades. Countless videos and texts. Find one thing he actually said or wrote, or one person who has ever accused him of racism first hand and I will listen to what you have to say.
Right now there is even a video of a poor old black man that says Paul went out of his way to treat his pregnant wife in the 70's while he was being turned away by prejudicial whites.
You have no evidence whatsoever that this man harbors any kind of racial animosity. You're being as ridiculous as the "Obama's a muslim" crowd.”
BuckJ on Jan 1, 2012 at 10:57:34
“No, I'm not. I'm white. Grew up around conservative white people who "weren't prejudiced". And I know the score.”
“wow that's impressive. Even if your numbers were right (which they aren't) he added 4 trillion in debt in only 3 years. Even by your sunny numbers that means he added 3 million jobs at a cost of $1 million per job.
wow that's like, so impressive and stuff. Saved the American auto industry? All the man did was give them billions of our money without any of us getting a car in return. You can save any business if you give them money for nothing in return!
Aside from that, Ford did not accept the government's money and they would have wildly and rightfully profited from the demise of Chevy and GM, so really all you did was screw Ford for making cars people actually bought. Congratulations.
Quick, make up some more fictitious statistics to justify 3 trillion dollars of debt or make an excuse for his signing of the defense authorization act on New Years eve which gives the president the power to indefinitely detain or assassinate American citizens without a trial.”
“considering not one single policy he's passed has done anything for the economy whatsoever aside from increase our debt, I'm not going to hold my breath.”
The Right Never Are on Dec 31, 2011 at 11:44:30
“He's brought America back from the edge of collapse, staunched the hemorrhaging of 750,000 jobs a month he inherited from Bush, brought on 22 straight months of continuous job growth, saved the American auto industry and has added 3 Million jobs to the American economy.
Quick, say something about his birth certificate.”
E-Nation on Dec 31, 2011 at 11:42:04
“The faster you drive, the longer it will take to make a complete stop, before you can then go in reverse. The fact you expect an accelerating 8 year mess to be corrected in only 3 is where you fail”
“Bush was an absolute disaster, I will give you that. However I have a very hard time finding anything Obama did differently than Bush. Every core policy Bush had, Obama continued, so in what way was he different, let alone better?”
disabled54 on Dec 31, 2011 at 00:51:09
“oh please Obama isnt anything like Bush the war monger”
“He didn't write them, he disavowed the controversial statements, and he is not on record anytime in the last 30 years of ever saying or doing anything remotely racist.
You can find obscure speeches he made about the gold standard clear back in 1983 on Youtube, surely if he was any kind of racist there would be stories or reports accusing him, yet there is nothing aside from these scraps.
“How do you know he didn't write them? In the 80s and 90s, he did not have a big staff. How does someone produce a newsletter every month for nearly 20 years - that he apparently signed - that is title with his own name and yet he never contributed or even read the content?
Someone is being very very naive.”
BuckJ on Dec 30, 2011 at 00:44:04
“Oh please, he "won't have written" anything anyone could ever possibly dig up. If someone found video of him yelling epithets at someone, you'd claim it was manipulated footage.
It's one big No True Scotsman argument.”
OliveColored on Dec 30, 2011 at 00:35:50
“Mght want to look into the john birch society.”
Demidan on Dec 30, 2011 at 00:35:29
“There has been at least five stories here on HP that disprove your idyllic post.”
WilliamP on Dec 30, 2011 at 00:34:19
“Same old question begging. He didn't write them, and we know this because he says he didn't write them. You're just assuming that he didn't write them with a complete lack of evidence.
Until we find out who did write them, then the media should keep digging.”
“This man is so principled that when he voted against the medal to honor Rosa Parks, he cited that it was a bunch of opportunist politicians spending someone else's money while taking credit for it.
He instead took to the floor and said that if they really wanted to honor her, he was willing to offer up $50 of his own money and if all 535 members of congress were willing to do the same they pay for the medal themselves without dumping that cost on the taxpayer.
Guess how that turned out.
It's really this simple, every "no" vote he casts is because it violates the constitution. Congress doesn't have the authority to "honor" people with taxpayer-funded ceremonies and tokens of appreciation, the constitution grants this authority nowhere.
What's especially interesting about this pathetic hit piece is that there's no mention of his voting no to The Iraq War, The Patriot Act, The bank bailouts, FISA, and a litany of other awful bills.
That's convenient, isn't it?”
phoenixbc on Dec 28, 2011 at 23:22:49
“In a real world, do you really believe that the money or a medal was the issue? Paul opposed the idea of honoring Rosa Parks. He's obviously much smarter than his supporters, because so many of the Ron Paul lemmings love to hold this out as an example of his "protection of our tax dollars".
If that were the case, then where did he stand on the Purple Heart Medal or the Medal of Honor? He has a history of blaming Black Americans for a laundry list of things. If you don't know where he stands on Rosa Parks, then do a Google Images search on her name and try to figure out her race.
By the way, the Constitution does not bar honoring individuals. Take a course in Constitutional Law, study Article I Section 9, and get back to us.”
CeltGunn1970 on Dec 28, 2011 at 23:01:05
“Actually, he offered $100 bucks out of his own pocket for each and every medal of honor offered jf, every single time they shot it down. All total, it would have cost out of congress pockets $70 I think another article stated, for a grand total of $30k for a solid gold medal. 0_o greedy toads.
Anyway, that's the short of it, they want to spend our money on it, not their own.”
JMKeynes on Dec 28, 2011 at 22:55:12
“He co-sponsored a school prayer amendment. A lot of people feel that's not consistent with the Constitution.
And every time I hear that story about the Rosa Parks medal it's a different amount.”
Nic Wilson on Dec 28, 2011 at 22:54:38
“Most people cannot read beyond the headline, but on a said note-not that it really matters, but it was a hundred dollars he offered
that is for the anti-paul people”
We have built an embassy in Iraq larger than the Vatican and left behind tens of thousands of private mercenaries such as Blackwater (or whatever they are called now). And marijuana is absolutely illegal in every state.
Marijuana is legal in many states? Yeah, according to those states, but clearly you have no idea how this country works.
The federal government has already gone into many of those states and arrested medical marijuana users because it is still illegal under federal law.
But go on and make another statement on things you clearly know nothing about.”
Christian Figueroa on Dec 28, 2011 at 21:44:48
“Well since its legal in my city and state, you can kiss my smoke. But you mitt need to take off the tinfoil hat first.”