Well said, judge, well said...

[ToeJam]

Judge Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

[NRiderUSA]

Where do I sign up???? He said it, defind it and hit it.
He was right on target, this is definately one of those pass on clips.

You cant silence truth.........YET

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by ToeJam

Judge Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

My agreeing with the content of this video helps to prove I am not necessarily affiliated with any political group. This mainly addresses "head-on" the Patriot Act; which of course was enacted under Bush in one of the worst periods of our history. The Patriot Act was voted into law overwhelmingly with a bi-partisan vote (because what politician at that time after 911 would want to have been caught with their pants-down not defending our country from foreign terrorists?).

However, what this speech's content demonstrates (quite inarguably I might add) that our government has completely run off the rails and is so far out to touch to what is going on, that we switched from the BS handling of 911 to the Patriot Act to Obama and the most left-winged people in this country left in charge to run it. They clearly don't know what the hell is going on... just ask Pelosi... she doesn't even know what "bills" she is signing (fact).

Imagine a car on an icy road (in the mountains for you in California and Arizona) whereby a vehicle begins to slide sideways. First one way, and then the other... all the while the driver trying steer ahead of the next slide from side to side. Eventually from being over-steered, the car ends up in the ditch or worse yet head-on into traffic in the on-coming lane.

This is exactly what is happening to our government. Our politicians are not intelligent and/or capable enough to handle what is laid before them. The result is an over-steer from the side to side... and we are about to hit something.

Call it what you want... but America seriously needs to wake-up. Life as we know it is about to make another major change here shortly... so "heads-up"... you were warned.

[Idaho]

I am afraid that you are spot on Greg. It is a very scary future for us.

[NRiderUSA]

The Occupy Wallstreet situations are probably a preview of things to come, especially with some of the Democrat leadership Instigating and encouraging them....... It would appear the great one who was going to bring America together has done more to split and seperate everyone, racism is back, poor hate rich, left hates right, have nots hate haves....long list of enemies has created in the last 3 years..... and when they run out of enemies to target, they will continue to create new ones.

After all you cant be the hero without someone to rescue everyone from.

Pure speculation on my side here, but I really wonder if there is an agenda here pushing us towards the ability to declare martial law where all bets are off and he becomes Chancellor of germany... I mean America.
Only a few months left before he may lose the chance if he doesnt get re-elected.....just thinking outloud.

I guess it is inevitable, history repeats itself isnt just a saying.

[canedriver]

He asked a good question. Where in the constitution is it authorized for the federal government to regulate healthcare?

I like how he ignores the fact (as many of you do) that there was a whole lot NOT covered in the constitution.

Ask your wife or daughters how they like voting or owning property.
Ask your non white friends how they like equal rights.
When you pay your taxes do you ask why you should since its not in the original constitution.
Until the 22nd amendment you would have had a chance at Obama for 4 or even more terms of office.
Some of you poorer guys may not have even been able to vote for or against obama because of a poll tax.

Not a very good argument when you say something is or isnt in the constitution.

Hell its in the constitution that I have the right to bear arms so why I cant i have a nuke?

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by canedriver

He asked a good question. Where in the constitution is it authorized for the federal government to regulate healthcare?

I like how he ignores the fact (as many of you do) that there was a whole lot NOT covered in the constitution.

Ask your wife or daughters how they like voting or owning property.
Ask your non white friends how they like equal rights.
When you pay your taxes do you ask why you should since its not in the original constitution.
Until the 22nd amendment you would have had a chance at Obama for 4 or even more terms of office.
Some of you poorer guys may not have even been able to vote for or against obama because of a poll tax.

Not a very good argument when you say something is or isnt in the constitution.

Hell its in the constitution that I have the right to bear arms so why I cant i have a nuke?

You answered your own question - The constitution was amended, which is the proper way to correct or clarify.
Government actions are clarified in the courts when there is no apparent directive for which its actions are based. AND, until we stand up and demand clarification through the courts, the government will always push the envelope and abuse its power.
Murder is illegal, but if the courts didn't enforce the law, there would be no consequence.

[NRiderUSA]

Love to hear the "What if it rains" well "What if it snows" well "What if it rains and snows" well "what if it doesnt really rain hard".... the never ending search of a liberal to find that clause that isnt in it or wording that can be twisted.....never will be able to answer it cause they will never run out of "What If's"

[canedriver]

NRider, you cant have it both ways. You cant call something unconstitutional then have a complaint that the "liberals" are on a never ending search to find a clause that is or isn't in the wording.

Toejam, are you saying you need a constitutional amendment for every law? If that was the case nothing would get done.

[NRiderUSA]

Originally Posted by canedriver

NRider, you cant have it both ways. You cant call something unconstitutional then have a complaint that the "liberals" are on a never ending search to find a clause that is or isn't in the wording.

Toejam, are you saying you need a constitutional amendment for every law? If that was the case nothing would get done.

Not sure what your referencing there but when someone tries to try to expand definitions of "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" into we somehow owe something other than the right to pursue it and not be interfered with .....there is no pay for anything in anything written there.... of course I'm betting you would disagree.

It says what it means... the government will not and cannot interfere with those rights based on the constitution.... it does not say or even imply to pay for anyones "I always wanted to screw with no Consequences so pay for my birth control pills" which are not being blocked or unavailable in any way shape or form, "I always wanted to be free and have sex with as many people as I can but now I'm pregnant pay for the abortion, its only fair".....or any other "I always wanted fill in the blank" and somehow that is garaunteed under the constitution.

This is a created environment over decades from the left to insure no person shall have the weight of taking responsibilty for their own actions cause we want to be your daddy mentality... now go ahead and throw in the "What if's"..... and most of the "Its free if they get elected" voters will continue to stay on the "its free" ride and continue to vote for those who are in fact buying their votes with the "Free" stuff.

And Toes right... thats why they have to do Amendments (or are supposed to), to insure we dont get someone in charge that just makes the laws up as they go along.. to bribe voters to vote for them for the free stuff they will get if they do..

Appears politicians have found a work around loop hole in the wording to do or created a loop hole so they can.

[brote]

Originally Posted by NRiderUSA

Pure speculation on my side here, but I really wonder if there is an agenda here pushing us towards the ability to declare martial law where all bets are off and he becomes Chancellor of germany... I mean America. Only a few months left before he may lose the chance if he doesnt get re-elected.....just thinking outloud.

I guess it is inevitable, history repeats itself isnt just a saying.

To continue in this vane please check out this link from the White House and another "Executive Order" from our leader.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-preparedness

[blowndodge]

Originally Posted by canedriver

He asked a good question. Where in the constitution is it authorized for the federal government to regulate healthcare?

I like how he ignores the fact (as many of you do) that there was a whole lot NOT covered in the constitution.

Ask your wife or daughters how they like voting or owning property.
Ask your non white friends how they like equal rights.
When you pay your taxes do you ask why you should since its not in the original constitution.
Until the 22nd amendment you would have had a chance at Obama for 4 or even more terms of office.
Some of you poorer guys may not have even been able to vote for or against obama because of a poll tax.

Not a very good argument when you say something is or isnt in the constitution.

Hell its in the constitution that I have the right to bear arms so why I cant i have a nuke?

Once again the Constitution was drafted and finalized to..... wait for it............. wait for it................... LIMIT THE SIZE AND POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

The Articles of Confederation was the Original document for the the 13 states. No Constitutions yet. What was omitted in them was the power for congress to levy taxes to RUN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. You know those people called Senators and Representatives??

Under the Articles the Feds were limited to funding only granted by the 13 member states. This circumstance crated more power in the states than the federal gov't by witholding funds. IN 1789 these Articles were replaced with the Constitution which included this under Article 8 Section 1. granting Congress the power to levy taxes to run the Fed gov't.

You need to know your history Cane before you make a feeble attempt at defining our Constitution and it's history.

And what about the Bill of Rights that came after in late 1789?

Cane do did you know that The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution? They were introduced as a series of amendments in 1789 in the First United States Congress by James Madison. Ten of them were ratified and became the Bill of Rights in 1791. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States.

Don't try to spin your opinion/point of view with facts you seem to know little about bro..

Giving women or daughters" and minorities voting priviledges did not EXPAND the size of Gov't... It was granting more rights to more people. Maybe thats why they called it "The Bill of Rights" ????

In other words the "ammendments" by the Bill of Rights further limited the powers of the Feds by expanding personal rights.

For you to believe that the Feds have the rights to determine the manner of how those rights are dealt out is hogwash. That's what's not Constitutional...

[canedriver]

Blowndodge,

I know the difference between Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th amendment. Do you? Because your reading into what i said. I stated taxes. I didn't specify income, excise, tariff, or poll. Maybe learn a bit more about taxation before throwing out feeble comments.

I know exactly what the bill of rights are. The examples I gave are not in the original bill of rights. That's the argument I am making. There is a lot the government has done that was not addressed in the bill of rights. Sorry but paying an income tax is not in the original no matter what you want to read into those words. Its why people try and fail to use the 16th amendment not being legally ratified as a defense.

Thank you for making an arguement for me. It was intentional. Kind of like leading a pet to water. You listed Article 8 briefly. I will print the entire paragraph.

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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Uh oh did you just make an argument that makes the healthcare mandate constitutional? Pretty sure healthcare reform is good for the general welfare of the United States as we all can agree something needs to be done. Heck you just justified the paying for that healthcare.

In your own words, feeble friend feeble. Surely you can come up with a better arguement without giving us yet another reason why its legal but hey to you for trying.

Thanks

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by canedriver

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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Wow... You you really can take a broad interpretation of a word and refine to your defense (and apparent need).

Let's see... You picked out the word "welfare" without using the word "GENERAL" prior to it, which helps to clarify its meaning further. Rather convenient of you to do that.

So now the debate is whether "GENERAL WELFARE" can be refined into your interpretation.

That is where the Supreme Court comes in... To tell "us" their interpretation, and they don't always get it right unfortunately.

Personally, I do not interpret "general welfare" as stating the government must provide healthcare. I see it as meaning the government is to look out for the big picture.

Again, if you give the government the power over healthcare administration, you may live long enough to regret it - espesicially when they tell you at the age of 80, you cannot have expensive treatment since your life expectancy is short. (There are sections of the bill that provide for that. Read it. In addition you will have a panel of 15 appointed - not elected - to oversee the program; which clearly limits "the people's" control over the program.)

Lastly, you will likely see certain activities deemed dangerous or unhealthy outlawed because of the cost burden to the "system". Don't think so? You forget, this is the government you are talking about, plus there are people out there like you that would support that kind of freedom breach.

So, is the system broke? Certainly! But a government controlled system is NOT the answer. Your grand kids will be pissing on your grave for making such an ignorant decision!


Edited for spelling errors...

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by canedriver

NRider, you cant have it both ways. You cant call something unconstitutional then have a complaint that the "liberals" are on a never ending search to find a clause that is or isn't in the wording.

Toejam, are you saying you need a constitutional amendment for every law? If that was the case nothing would get done.

The Patriot Act and the Healthcare Laws, are not just "any" law, but both have pushed the envelope of what may or may not be constitutional - which SHOULD be clarified by the courts.