While that is funny the answer to the little girls question would have had to be "because nobody wants to hire a smelly homeless guy to do anything."
Please reconcile the two highlighted statements, since the equal protection clause was NOT passed by the founders. Additionally, like many, you go on about "unconstitutional" without so much as pointing to a specfic provision of the constitution violated, a court case which has declared such action unconstitutional, or the specific means in which the act violates the specific provision of the constitution (i.e., principle of uniformity required by the Constitution. Sounds pretty, clause and section please?) Just irks the shit out of me.
Okay, you are pretty clearly conflating criticism of policies you disagree with with constitutional infirmity. Its like calling Republican's racists. It isn't accurate and it doesn't help your argument for better policies. Any squirrel eating gun nuts can pretend he understands the constitution but you are doing nothing more than crabbing about laws you don't happen to like.
Yeah, yeah... I'll stack my anti-tax, pro-property rights chops against anyone. Self-defeating as a graduated tax scheme may be, sometimes we need to step back and appreciate which ships have long since left the dock. There are more interesting battles. More winnable, too.
If ignorance amuses you, you can bet you're going to be laughing your head off for the next couple of years.
The founding fathers did not believe in a personal income tax and there was none. Instead they taxed the states according to their population, hence everyone was equal. Even more telling of their thoughts is the Declaration of Independence and the famous line that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to acquire property.
After nearly 100 years of unconstitutional actions by the federal government we finally have a small group willing to go back to the Constitution. Now is the tiime to start taking the country back. :wink:
One would think they might have explicitly stated something as important to them as the right to acquire property in the Constitution. It's almost like they might have left the thing up to interpretation on purpose or something...
So, to recap, you can't point to a single provision of the ACTUAL Constitution of the United States to support your arguments that actions taken by this administration are "unconstitutional." They are simply disagreeable to you based on extrapolating the "beliefs" or wants of the founding fathers based on what they did not do. Gotcha. Sound reasoning.
Yawn... The Constitution also tells us that if we are pissed off at how things are going that we should probably forget about it and start over. I guess it's also everyone's unalienable right to disregard the Constitution when it isn't getting the job done anymore... right?
Must be my stupid translater, but I do not see what you are referring to in the actual TEXT. Unless you are arguing the constitution is a living, breathing document subject to interpretation: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Actually no. If you feel the Consitution is no longer getting the job done amend it as has been done in the past.
So the whole thing about the government being destructive and the people creating a new one to maximize their happiness applied to every form of government before our own?
This is laughable. The first 8 amendments deal with the right to "accumulate" property? And you specify the 5th amendment, which deals with rights against self-incrimination, due process rights and eminent domain. Dude, stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh and Palin and actually READ shit. You may have legitimate points, but no one will take them seriously if you're unable to support them, and merely mimik, piss-poorly, what you've heard talking heads say.
LMMFAO! Do you even understand what due process fucking means? It does NOT mean you get to "accumulate" property! LMMFAO! Wow, you are a true credit to your party!
I can't talk in generalities, give me a specific example and I can respond. However, almost all of the unconstitutional practices violate the Tenth Amendment, which states that the only powers of the Federal Government are those specifically granted to it by the Constitution, all others belonging to the States or the people. The federal government today has so much power as the result of three actions. Outright usurpation of power, the Supreme Court decision in the 1936 Butler Case reversing the meaning of the welfare clause, and major distortions of the Commerce Clause.
