United States Presidential Election, 2012

Blastoise said:
If we define "big government" as "government that makes laws about almost everything in the country", and the "big government" makes laws about something that the Constitution does not say it can, then it is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

Okay, so all you were really saying is that the 10th amendment is evidence that states have power. Good job.


There is a word for "government that makes laws about everything," it's called a unitary government. 'Big government' specifies nothing, and implying a unitary form of government just by saying 'big government' is a far stretch.


Edit: Also, in your original post you didn't even say big government, you said "larger government [is] unconstitutional"

You keep saying you were implying that your statement was referring only to reserved powers, but your original post clearly doesn't say that.

I'm just going to assume you've accepted the fact that you can't justify any part of the statement "The Constitution is designed to put the states above the federal government, which makes larger government unconstitutional," based on the fact that you keep avoiding answering the question. Not to mention the statement is completely false, which I guess makes it understandable that you have no reasonable argument to defend it.

gg no re
 
Stargatedalek said:
I wouldn't have ever posted here again but I found this pic so funny and it has to do with the election :P
team-rocket-romney-ryan-pokeman-jpeg.4657

BTW I know next to nothing about politics...

i already posted that

and gp posted it before me
 
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
Edit: Also, in your original post you didn't even say big government, you said "larger government [is] unconstitutional"
I did? I think what I meant by that was what you're saying - a unitary government.
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
You keep saying you were implying that your statement was referring only to reserved powers, but your original post clearly doesn't say that.
Hmm... Well then, I guess I worded something incorrectly in my original post. My mistake.
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
I'm just going to assume you've accepted the fact that you can't justify any part of the statement "The Constitution is designed to put the states above the federal government, which makes larger government unconstitutional," based on the fact that you keep avoiding answering the question.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just saying that the government shouldn't be expanding into legal areas where the states are supposed to be the decision-makers. If you're looking for me to justify the statements that either
a. federal government is superior to state government (where the federal government has dominion) or
b. a large government as in number of services/emloyees is unconstitutional
then I won't justify those, because they're wrong. I'm not trying to argue that those are correct. I'm only trying to say that the government is making laws where it shouldn't be.

Section 8 of the Constitution lays out what the government is allowed to do:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What I'm saying is the federal government has no right to pass certain laws, such as the prohibition of marijuana, and yet they have. As it is not dictated to the feds under Section 8, under the 10th Amendment the right pass laws about that is reserved to the states.
 
Unless they lump it under the "necessary and proper" clause.
 
I agree, but the feds obviously don't see it that way.
 
Blastoise said:
It's still unconstitutional. And this is really a greater level of democracy, since state can decide state affairs instead of nation deciding state affairs.

You cannot justify something immoral by saying that it's in the constitution. If the constitution is wrong, maybe it's time for an amendment. If the only evidence of your position that you have is that the other person's position unconstitutional, you're probably wrong.

Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.

What a fucked-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?




(Just in case this doesn't come through in the above comment, I'm not actually getting as worked up about this as I may appear to be)
 
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.

What a *bleep*ed-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?

That's similar to saying "Don't live in America if you don't like its laws"