PulpExposure wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Or more specifically to your point, what makes you want to turn those things over to ANYONE! Which is probably why none of those powers are authorized to the Federal government in the Constitution, barring them from the Federal government by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
You should really read the Constitution, and not just the Amendments. Start with taking a look at Article I, Section 8.
And Article 1, Section 8 covers at the Federal level social security, medicare, welfare, medicaid, national health, education, national energy, the national petroleum reserve, the Federal Reserve, Corporate bailouts and a plethora of other programs with no Constitutional Authority where?
The founding fathers set out to write a narrowly written document ceding certain specific powers to the Federal government in order to protect personal freedoms and State rights. You pick the section and article of course including the commerce clause that self serving liberals and power hungry lawyers use to rationalize their personal objectives. To actually believe that founding fathers who set out to write an enumerated document meant the commerce clause to be so broad as to include anything that is or even could be traded between the States rendering it meaningless as an "enumerated" power can only be achieved through deluded self serving rationalization or monumental stupidity. Typically it's done by those practicing the former in order to persuade the latter.
PulpExposure wrote:Kazoo wrote:The Constitution, a document Lawyers have consistently demonstrated they are unable to read. I always thought you had to get a high score on the LSAT. Apparently you need a low one.
I suppose this is reserved only for government lawyers, too? And please. Tell me what the LSAT has to do with the Constitution. When I took it, it had reading comprehension, a logic games section, and a legal reasoning section (which did not involve the Constitution or Bill of Rights). Or is this yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about?
Um...OK. My reference is that the LSAT is dominated by "logic." Did you really not get that? Was it a "joke" to somehow prove my point that you didn't follow the reference?
