"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 3:41 am, "HH&C" wrote:
On Jan 19, 2:15 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:54 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

On Jan 18, 6:00 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:37 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:28 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:16 pm, "HH&C"
wrote:

On Jan 18, 11:24 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:55 am, "HH&C"
wrote:

On Jan 18, 10:04 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:40 am, "HH&C"
wrote:"At
the time the Constitution was written people were
streaming across
the border to dig in the dirt and plant seeds, and
practice their own
version of Christianity. Today they are streaming across
the border
to get food stamps.Fair enough. Show me where it is
allowed at the
present time."

wow, thats funny, i see people first or second
generation here working
hard, and partaking in our economy, i see them every
day, they are my
neighbors. So i am supposed to show you were creation of
a social
safety net is allowed at the present time, that’s cool.
You should
read about the supreme courts decision on United States
v. Butler, 297
U.S. 1 (1936), and how that ruling declared
congressional powers are
not limited to direct grants in the constitution.

Like I said, show where in the Constitution your social
safety net is
allowed or mandated.

Show where the Constitution does not limit the power of
the Fed and
reserve it for the people and/or for the states.

i showed you the case was made in 1936, by same branch of
government
who decided a presidential election, you remember the
judicial branch,
it was set up in our constitution.

So now the Supreme Court gets to edit the Constitution?

OK. Again, show me where they edited the Constitution.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so based on that same logic you should show me where the
constitution
mandated the supreme court could decide a presidential election.

That is your game.

Tell me more about the constitutionally mandated social safety
net.

Maybe you need to learn a little more before you reply again.

I am trying to learn more.

Specifically, I want to know where in the constitution I can read
up
on this social safety net that you keep referring to.

We could save a lot of time if you were able to show it to me.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the point is the court case i previously cited from the supreme
court
showed congress has the power to do so. You are attempting to make a
myopic argument, where you are not recognizing the supreme courts
power to make such a ruling.

You are correct. That is exctly what I am saying.

Now if every you were ok with the courts
ruling in gore vs bush, as the supreme court was not constitutional
mandated to make a choice on our nations presidency, but you dont
recognize its statement when it ruled in the case i mentioned
before,
because its not constitutionaly mandated, it seems you want it both
ways. Not to logical on your part.

You are not logical. You are making the claim that SCOTUS is always
right or always wrong.

You're wasting my time, kid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are wasting your own time if you continue to use your terrible
reasoning in discussions. And i made no such claim, what i stated was
you want it both ways, ie only constitutionaly mandated for one case,

Please remind me again why the Congress trumps the Constitution.

but when i pointed out a decision that was not contstitutionaly
mandated, you cut and run.

Look, kid, I've been kind enough to stay by your side through this
whole thing.

So yes you need to learn some more, until
then, you got nothing boy.

The Constitution limits the government's power. The Supreme Court
decision you refer to is not consistent with that theme.

Do you understand this?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i dont care about your so called restraint, what you should care about
is your idiotic bs, and the terrible logic you are basing your
argument on.. So why dont you admit that in 1936 the supreme court
made a ruling that directly addresses this "theme", and that is
currently the rule of law. Meaning you will need another case infront
of the supreme court, or a constitutional amendment.

reply: For purporting to be an educated person, your English is horrible.

Steve