Christ never criticized the pharisees?
Very well said, k9bfriender.
Luke 18:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
CHIP was a State/Federal program tied to the Social Security act. Since the program was under Social Security wouldn’t the Supreme Court’s view that the Federal government can for the sake of the general welfare participate?
And, for the pedantic among us, there’s even enacting language to ensure that people don’t complain, centuries later, that there’s no constitutional authorization for welfare.
Seriously, Clothahump, what do you think the Constitution actually says??
Do you agree that providing for the general welfare is one such enumerated power?
Well, there are two possibilities.
Possibility #1 is that the answer is “yes”, and Republicans like Bricker are self-serving heartless bastards more than willing to have children get sick and die as long as it serves the interests of the plutocracy. And as long, of course, as it somebody else’s children. Like poor people’s children.
– OR –
Possibility #2 is that the answer is “no” despite what the Constitution actually says, and there is a whole long list of federal legislation from social security to Medicare to CHIP to the ACA that is totally unconstitutional, but no one has been able to do a damn thing about it.
I wonder which one is more likely, if one applies Occam’s Razor?
Ever since Social Security survived attempts at declaring it unconstitutional, the argument that the federal government should not do things like that just because the constitution does not mention it specifically is an asinine one.
Bricker and Clothy are indeed getting their lessons from the monster shrinking stone heart’s university.
And under an expansive reading, judges run the government.
But here’s the thing: you have no standards at all, except outcomes you want. If judges take the power you’ve handed them and rule in ways you don’t like, you declare their judgements illegitimate. So for your method, it really doesn’t matter: you hate the strict reading of the Constitution, except when it comes to the Second Amendment, and then, the stricter the better.
I’d prefer it if you just say, “Hey, screw the Constitution, let’s do what I want.”
The government’s spending power is limited by Art I, Sec 9.
There is no appropriation made by law for this expenditure.
Don’t like it? Sucks to be you, then.
If only those things were inconsistent.
Suck to be a poor kid left to starve, that is.
I ultimately think that all judges (and politicians) pretty much do this (whether they realize it or not) to at least some degree, and the main difference aside from preferred outcome is how skilled they are at rationalizing and matching their chosen outcome to some bit of Constitutional text.
But then IANAL.
Only because it expired, you jackass. It was certainly legal, and constitutional, until then. And no non-imaginary person is proposing we keep paying for it extralegally.
Also sucks to be a poor kid. But who cares about them? Slaughter them all and use their bones for kindling.
Did he even mention judges in this post?
No. The only reason you bring them up is because you desire to derail the conversation. Probably have plans on bringing up bork again.
The op and everyone else has been criticizing the legislature, and you bring up judges. Then you try mind reading.
You are really trying here, but you are trying to defend killing children, and that’s a new low, even for you. I don’t think that you are up for it.
I’d prefer it if you just say, “Hey, screw anyone who is not me, fuck them and leave them to die.”
sigh
He said, “To you consider things like the TVA and the Interstate system to be unconstitutional? How about FEMA, weather satellites, and the like? Government funded research? Under a strict reading of the Constitution, the US would never have developed.”
Now, look carefully. You’re right that the word “judge,” does not appear there.
But. . . might there be anything in that paragraph of his that calls to mind judges? Federal court decisions? Anything at all.
Look closely. Concentrate. You can do it.
Uh, no wonder you thought the Dred Scott decision was a good one. (That article also regulates limits on what congress can do with slavery )Thing is that after the 16th amendment your point is silly.
As one can notice, There was though an item pointing that slavery was the law of the land, sucks that you can not get slaves now, uh?
If that were true, then we’d expect to be able to confidently align judge’s opinions with their preferred outcomes.
But that’s not always the case. I assure you that Nino Scalia was against idiots that burn American flags to show their disagreement with the country. I’m also confident he favored being able to collect DNA from arrestees and log it in a searchable database without needing a warrant. But he recognized that the correct reading of the First and Fourth Amendments, respectively, cut against his personal preferences, and he voted with the liberal justices on each of those issues.
Your opinion isn’t based on any kind of careful study of the matter, is it?
The Sixteenth Amendment allows tax on income. So what? It doesn’t allow the government to spend it without an appropriation, does it?
Does the stupid hurt when it’s in your head?
Successfully.
In this thread, I’m going to respond from now on only to decent argument, so people like Gigobuster will probably be ignored.
If anyone else wonders why I’m not talking to you, step up your debate game or shut up.
Tell me when CHIP was declared uncostitutional and then you have an argument that is not monstrous. You are really the one with the republican idiot ball here.