Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Quote:
congressional inaction does not constitutionally give the executive the power to act in the place of Congress. If that were allowed, there would be no need for Congress. If that were the case, the Framers could have eliminated Article One of the Constitution which describes the powers and duties of Congress, and incorporated all of that Article's enumerated powers into Article Two which is the Executives list of duties and powers. There is no magic constitutional "context" in which the executive can simply say "if the Congress won't do it, I will." It is Congress's prerogative to act or not act on something regardless of what the President wants. I'm pretty sure Obama would be screaming foul play if the Congress went about doing the executive's job when he wouldn't. Yet, there are many instances during Obama's tenure where he didn't, as required, enforce Congressional legislation. So would those instances have given Congress the power to say "if the President won't do it we will?" No. And Obama's administration were all up in a hissy fit when Congress wrote a letter to the Iranian government regarding the negotiations it was making with Obama's surrogates saying that Congress was unconstitutionally overreaching their power with incursion into Executive power. Even though the Congress actually did have a right to do so as they had every right to inform the Iranians what it would do if the deal was struck. Just as the President has a right to say he will veto a bill if it is passed. |
Quote:
we've "progressed" to a point where a significant number of Americans have, either through ignorance, arrogance or obstinance... no regard for Constitutionally enumerated individual rights....Constitutionally designated and limited government powers and separations and often varying interpretations regarding accountability depending on who is in power and which pet issue is at stake....tell me exactly how we reach compromise again? |
Quote:
But this kid in Newtown, and absolutely the Jared Loughner kid in Arizona, these were kids that were terribly broken, in desperate need of help, there were plenty of warning signs. There are 2 things we can do. we can continue to let the mentally ill roam free, until after they hurt someone. If this is what we decide to do, we can't be shocked when they occasionally snap. Or we can make it easier to commit the mentally ill. If we do that, we will be locking up a lot of people that probably wouldn't ever hurt anyone, but if we stop a very small number from going on killing sprees, maybe it's worth it. Maybe not. That'sthe conversation we need to have, at lesat regarding large-scale shootings by the mentally ill. Th egarden variety urban violence, which accounts for the vast majority of gun violense, is a completely different issue, requiring a completely different solution. |
Quote:
its just like abortion only the Base's care and climate change 1 side thinks there an issue and the other side says there isn't ... Just beacuse both parties feel if the R or D are for it we will be against it.. reguardless of Facts or logic or historical examples And Those who dont own gun do we not have inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Via United States Declaration of Independence not be shot by 2a guys stolen guns .. every ones a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and are Convicted |
Good point Jim. It's rare that someone is that disturbed and there are no warning signs.
|
Quote:
But when government restricts, or denies rights, in order to prevent a loss of rights, that is not only a contradiction, it is tyranny. And it results from that notion that rights are not merely TO something, but also FROM something. A right TO something can be unalienable. A right FROM something can only be provided by government. And when rights FROM override rights TO, then government controls and owns the giving of all rights. None are then unalienable. |
Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Thats how it works its doubtful to ever happen.. but if I listen to you its already has happen why say something that is untrue I can go buy a gun today why because its my right hasn't been taken as you keep suggesting ! |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com