Why are so many spewing hate speech against ACORN?

[johnwk]

Keep in mind that ACORN’s plan is to intentionally get “poor people” registered to vote and participate in our “democracy“. What’s wrong with that? Let’s review the facts.

ACORN targets those who are within the 45 percent of American’s population who do not pay taxes and are currently on the public dole. The game plan is, increase the number of voters who are tax getters so they can outvote tax payers like Joe the plumber, and thereby get Obama elected so he can then use the force of our federal government to spread Joe the plumber’s wealth among tax getters which is Obama’s primary voting constituency.

Keep in mind how ACORN hides its real mission by claiming to be championing “democracy”. But our founding fathers established a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” [see Article 4 Section 4, U.S. Constitution] with defined and enumerated specific grants of power, none of which authorized federal tax revenue to be appropriated to meet the personal economic needs of individuals. Helping the poor was intentionally retained within the powers of the various states and those powers were constitutionally asserted and protected by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment! In short and simple language, our federal Constitution was intentionally designed to cure the excesses of “democracy”, a vile form of government which has so eloquently been described as two wolves and a sheep voting for what shall be for dinner.


As Madison has warned us with regard to "democracies", they "...have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...".

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."\

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially subjugate rights associated with property ownership, which includes the confiscation of wealth from those who have earned it. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


ACORN does not support and defend our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government nor the limited powers granted thereby, which in fact is our nation’s agreed upon social contract. ACORN and Obama’s kind are quite comfortable with a mob rule system of government in which 51 percent of the nation’s voters may use their vote to confiscate their neighbor’s property.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation.

[diuretic]

Someone has to fight the corrupted electoral system in some states. It's patently disgusting, the partisan corruption. I sense that's why the blizzard of propaganda against ACORN. But so far, tell me, what has been proven? I mean proven, not alleged.

[Sitarro]

Someone has to fight the corrupted electoral system in some states. It's patently disgusting, the partisan corruption. I sense that's why the blizzard of propaganda against ACORN. But so far, tell me, what has been proven? I mean proven, not alleged.

They themselves claim to have registered 1.3 million losers that don't give a shit enough to get off their lazy asses and register to vote. Why would we give a shit who they are paid with fried chicken dinners and cigarettes to vote for. They contribute nothing to society, they take from society. We should have to show a tax record and a picture I.D. to be allowed to vote, it's the least we could do to honor those that died for us to be able to do so.:salute:

Acorn is there for one reason, to drum up votes for their candidate, Barrack Hussein Osama......... and the U.S. Government taxpayers are paying them 31 million to do it, how much does that ruin every intelligent person's day?

[johnwk]

Why would we give a shit who they are paid with fried chicken dinners and cigarettes to vote for. They contribute nothing to society, they take from society. We should have to show a tax record and a picture I.D. to be allowed to vote, it's the least we could do to honor those that died for us to be able to do so.:salute:


I would like to believe that the majority of Americans have no objection to “poor people” being registered to vote by ACORN and then voting, even if “poor people” choose to vote for Obama! But I would also expect those provisions of our Constitution, which were intentionally designed to control the excesses of “democracy” and prevent “poor people” from using their vote to feed at the public trough, would be diligently observed and enforced. So, let us examine just one provision of our Constitution which is totally ignored and has to do with taxation and representation!

During the framing of our existing Constitution Delegates from States with superior wealth objected to having to carry a higher tax burden than poorer states. Under the Articles of Confederation which were in force during the framing of our existing Constitution, the national treasury was filled by a general tax among the states in which each state contributed a share of the federal tax burden from its state’s treasury based upon the assessed value of property within the state. This provision of the Articles of Confederation left wealthier states with a larger tax burned than poorer states and led to a bone of contention during the framing of our existing Constitution.

Eventually a compromise was reached during the Convention [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intended agreement was, and is contrary to the myth that Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 made Black’s 3/5ths of a person, was the creation of an agreed upon formula to be applied to both taxation and representation.

The rule agreed upon is intended to determine each state’s number of representatives in Congress and also determine each state’s share of a tax if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress finds it necessary to call upon the people directly to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states.

This rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows, and applies to representation and taxation:



State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435) = State`s No.of votes in Congress

population of U.S.



State`s population
------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population



So, if our Constitution’s fair share formula were enforced, how would this formula affect Obama’s ACORN voting mob, and how would it affect the friends of big government [Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Shumer, Hillary Clinton, etc.] who are great at wanting to vote to spend other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when spending money from the federal treasury?

And, how would our Constitution’s fair share formula affect the people of a particular state, such as New York, whose socialist congressional delegation endorsed Obama (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/06/new-york-congressional-delegation-endorses-obama/), and has a very big mouth in Congress (29 votes) and loves to spend money from the federal treasury, not to mention it has no problem with seeking out Joe the plumber in whatever state he may live, and compelling Joe to pay the tab while ACORN’s voters, who are already on the public dole in New York, get a free pass when it comes to filling the national treasury? Just how would our Constitution’s agreed upon fair share formula affect this unjust situation if Congress had to raise $67 BILLION to fund the federal Department of Education?

Well, New York would have to pay a share proportionately equal to its voting strength in Congress (29 votes) which boils down to “representation with proportional obligation“. New York’s share of the $67 BILLION would be computed from our Constitution’s fair share formula and a bill would then be sent to New York’s Governor with a time period in which the bill must be paid. New York would be left free to transfer its share of the tax from its state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way and then transfer its share of the tax into the treasury of the united States. Failure to meet its payment in the time period set by Congress would result in Congress sending forth its officers into New York State to asses and levy New York’s share of the tax which may be calculated from assessed property.

I wonder what the outcome of our current election would be if our left wing socialistic swing states were suddenly required to fork over an apportioned share of the federal tax burden from their state‘s treasury measured in proportion to each state’s voting strength in Congress as our Constitution commands. I suspect ACORN would immediately change its tune and start working to register Republicans, or people like Joe the Plumber, instead of registering tax getters who have a vested interest in voting for big spenders like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Shumer, Hillary Clinton, etc., and who use their vote to spread Joe the plumber’s wealth around wherever he can be found.

Bottom line is, we have a Congress in rebellion to our written Constitution, especially with regard to the rule of representation with proportional obligation, and Obama and his socialistic voting mob is intending to cash in on the rebellion by promising to loot the federal treasury and spread Joe the plumber’s wealth around.




PLEASE NOTE: the rule of apportionment as applied to “direct taxation“, has not been repealed by the 16th Amendment For example see, BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) the Court states, well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Likewise, the Court stated the same in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal, this limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

Finally, here is an
Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) using the rule of apportionment and showing each state’s share of the tax

Also see
Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Question is, when will Joe the plumber and the rest of America’s tax payers demand that Congress get back to following the wisdom of our founding fathers…Representation with Proportional Obligation which is our Constitution‘s fair share formula for taxation?


Regards,

JWK



If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation.

[manu1959]

registering real people to vote is great.....registering dead people, cartoon characters and the same person multiple times is not good......threatng banks with lawsuits if they don'tgive loans to people that can not aford topay is not good.....

ather than that...acorn is a great company....

[avatar4321]

they are registering people who dont exist or have been deceased to give them precedent over the real live people.

[Sitarro]

they are registering people who dont exist or have been deceased to give them precedent over the real live people.

And they are pretending to be nonpartisan to get 31 million out of the taxpayers. They are clearly not nonpartisan, they know exactly the type of people they will coerce into registering and they know they will help Obamasama, we would have to be insane not to see through these users.

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe that they are flooding the voter registration offices with a half million obviously false registrations so that the offices do not have time to identify the other half million false registrations which are not so obviously false....

[namvet]

are they still free to get these cheap mortgages for the poor???? I haven't heard of anyone stopping them.

[johnwk]

registering real people to vote is great.....registering dead people, cartoon characters and the same person multiple times is not good......threatng banks with lawsuits if they don'tgive loans to people that can not aford topay is not good.....

ather than that...acorn is a great company....


they are registering people who dont exist or have been deceased to give them precedent over the real live people.


I believe that they are flooding the voter registration offices with a half million obviously false registrations so that the offices do not have time to identify the other half million false registrations which are not so obviously false....

But why is all this happening? Is there not a common goal which inspires each of these actions?



And they are pretending to be nonpartisan to get 31 million out of the taxpayers. They are clearly not nonpartisan, they know exactly the type of people they will coerce into registering and they know they will help Obamasama, we would have to be insane not to see through these users.

But why would these people, which amount to a political faction, want to help Obama? Is it not safe to say that spreading the wealth from the federal treasury into their pockets is a primary object of this faction?

And what was our founding fathers solution concerning the dangers of factions and is exactly what we are now talking about?

Madison in FEDERALIST NO.10 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp) says:


By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

And so, what were our founding fathers solutions, which were written into our Constitution, to precluding the people of the various states from using a factious vote, a mob rule vote, to plunder the federal treasury for personal economic needs?

In one instance the cause of such faction was removed by limiting the powers granted to Congress, none of which authorizes federal revenue to be used for personal economic needs of people within the various states, and is the faction we are talking about. The limited powers granted to Congress, or to be more accurate, the separation of powers between the various states and the federal government are summed up as follows in FEDERALIST NO 45



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Keep in mind this separation of power was later emphasized and reaffirmed by the ratification of the 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.

And what has made Obama so popular among voters within the various states? He has promised to ignore our written Constitution and its limited grants of power and loot the federal treasury in order to bribe voters___ and particularly bribe voters who do not pay taxes ___ promising to spread the wealth of Joe the plumber to meet the personal economic needs of Obama's constituents.

So, in one instance, our founding fathers, by our written Constitution, controlled the danger of faction by limiting the powers granted to Congress, none of which authorizes appropriations of federal revenue for the personal economic needs of people living within the various states.

Getting back to our Constitution and our founding fathers remedies to control such factions, our founding fathers also provided another remedy, aside from the limited functions for which federal revenue may be appropriated. That remedy was intended to control the effects of factions “ whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens…“

Here we are talking about large majorities of voters within particular states (swing states) who are currently tax getters and have a large representation in Congress, and who intend to use their votes in Congress to seek out Joe the plumber, in whatever state he may live, and confiscate Joe’s earnings which will then be spread to them and is patently adverse to the economic rights of Joe the plumber who Obama intends to plunder using a mob rule vote .

And what was our founding fathers remedy against an unjust distribution of the burden of taxation? The rule requiring representation with proportional obligation! a battle cry similar to that which sparked our nation’s independence …“no taxation without representation“.

Our Constitution’s rule of representation with proportional obligation, if its legislative intent were to be observed and practiced, would require states with large numbers of tax getters [a present day powerful political faction], and whose Congressional Delegation votes to increase the burden of federal taxation to appease these tax getters, would also have to carry a share of the increased tax burden in proportion to its voting strength in Congress. Observing the rule of apportionment would make these increases in taxation impractical as the bill for such increases would not only be fixed by our Constitution’s fair share formula, but the bill would also be sent directly to the Governors of the very states who voted in Congress to increase the federal tax burden. In fact, for any state’s Congressional Delegation to vote for increasing federal taxes for the personal economic needs of individuals, would be looting their own state’s treasury, and placing the burden of such increases directly upon their own state Governor and Legislature who would be left with the responsibility of transferring that revenue from the state’s treasury into treasury of the United States….what a wonderful thought out check and balance to control Obama’s spread the wealth crowd, a political faction which now seeks to plunder the wealth of Joe the plumber.


The very purpose for the rule of apportionment was to create a rule by which the people of a state may be called upon by Congress to fill the national treasury and there is a wealth of documentation to establish this point. For example:



Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked that "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255.

Is it not time for the lovers of liberty to draw a line in the sand, demand our Constitution to be observed, and take on who plan to use their vote to steal their neighbor’s property, and especially steal the property produced which their neighbors produce by the sweat of their labor?

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation.

[Joe Steel]

But our founding fathers established a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” [see Article 4 Section 4, U.S. Constitution] with defined and enumerated specific grants of power, none of which authorized federal tax revenue to be appropriated to meet the personal economic needs of individuals.

That's just not so. Nothing in the Constitution limits it in any way. Nor does it prohibit federal payments to individuals. See Art 1., Sec. 8; "provide for...the general welfare."

[johnwk]

But our founding fathers established a constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” [see Article 4 Section 4, U.S. Constitution] with defined and enumerated specific grants of power, none of which authorized federal tax revenue to be appropriated to meet the personal economic needs of individuals.That's just not so. Nothing in the Constitution limits it in any way. Nor does it prohibit federal payments to individuals. See Art 1., Sec. 8; "provide for...the general welfare."

Well thank you for posting your personal and unsubstantiated opinion. But I must say, your opinion of our Constitution, and particularly with regard to the phrase “general welfare of the United States” and the meaning you have assigned to it is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, also known as the "general welfare" clause, states: "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."

So, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by the words “general welfare”?

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:

"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Even Hamilton, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:

"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording “promote the general welfare“.

As Justice Story correctly declares [see1084 of his com.] "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

It’s also interesting to note the intentions for which the first ten amendments to our Constitution is documented in the very Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm)



THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..


Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally establishment state governments, or the retained powers of the States and people therein. They were intentionally adopted to further restrict the federal government and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.

It is also important to recall that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism:



“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226)

And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan, a plan which does not authorize what you suggest.

The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the mountain of evidence concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes. The simple truth is, Congress is limited by the eighteen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Joe Steel]

The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the mountain of evidence concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes. The simple truth is, Congress is limited by the eighteen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!

In fact, the Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless.

"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."

Powers not posessed by the United States or the States are reserved to the People. Well, of course they are. The People are sovereign. As sovereign they may command their creature, the United States government, to do as they wish. That's consistent with the Preamble, "promote the genreral welfare, Art. 1, Sec. 8, "provide for the general welfare" and the First Amendment, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The weight of the text ovewhelmingly supports the idea of an unlimited government. That is, nothing in the text supports the idea of a limited government and the text does suggest the government is not limited in any meaningful way.

Then we have the acts of the Founders, themselves. Both Hamilton and Madison, regardless of what they might have written in the Federalist (which, by-the-way, was little more than a sales brochure intended to convince New York to ratify the Constitution,) promoted Federal expenditures not specifically mentioned in the Constituion. Hamilton got his Bank of the United States but Madison didn't get his expedition to find the magnetic north pole. Oh, and don't foreget Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Nothing in the Constitution permitted it but, as we all know, Jefferson got it.

As Brutus V said, (generally speaking) the "general welfare" means pretty much anything we want it to mean; "(t)he inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion."

[johnwk]

In fact, the Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless.

"The powers not delegated >>>>>>




Thank you for once again posting you personal and unsubstantiated opinions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Joe Steel]

Thank you for once again posting you personal and unsubstantiated opinions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Glad to help.

[theHawk]

If a citizen is too lazy to register themselves to vote then they have no business voting. We do not need third party organizations going around registering anyone. They usually have an agenda and will simply use their power to abuse the system and engange in fraudulent voting, as we have seen with ACORN.

[Yurt]

In fact, the Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless.

"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."

Powers not posessed by the United States or the States are reserved to the People. Well, of course they are. The People are sovereign. As sovereign they may command their creature, the United States government, to do as they wish. That's consistent with the Preamble, "promote the genreral welfare, Art. 1, Sec. 8, "provide for the general welfare" and the First Amendment, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The weight of the text ovewhelmingly supports the idea of an unlimited government. That is, nothing in the text supports the idea of a limited government and the text does suggest the government is not limited in any meaningful way.

Then we have the acts of the Founders, themselves. Both Hamilton and Madison, regardless of what they might have written in the Federalist (which, by-the-way, was little more than a sales brochure intended to convince New York to ratify the Constitution,) promoted Federal expenditures not specifically mentioned in the Constituion. Hamilton got his Bank of the United States but Madison didn't get his expedition to find the magnetic north pole. Oh, and don't foreget Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Nothing in the Constitution permitted it but, as we all know, Jefferson got it.

As Brutus V said, (generally speaking) the "general welfare" means pretty much anything we want it to mean; "(t)he inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion."

dude, for the umpteenth time, i showed you where Brutas V said such a reading WOULD RUIN this country AND OPPRESS its citizens