Obstruct and Blame Strategy Worked Perfectly for Republicans, Horribly for Americans

[JDeuce]

Lmao, two loon ass retards vs the Supreme Court. Another one of those very difficult choices I have to make. This ones gonna be really hard! You two seem like some very credible people, lol. Give me a night.

LOL, except the Supreme Court does not claim the powers you say they are. LOL.

You are wrong again, LOL.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying an NFL referee can change the definition of the game's rules on a week-to-week basis, LOL.

The Constitution is probably written at a fourth or fifth grade level of understanding, and it's way beyond your capabilities. LOL

 

[Willie99]

I just refuse to read everything this fraud posts, is he actually arguing against judicial review? is he arguing "constitutionality" is irrelevant or should be mitigated?

please tell me he's not THAT FUCKING STUPID, please

More of that libtard gene exposing itself. You see, in libtardville, every problem is always the Republicans fault. If the GOP controls the House and / or the Senate with a libtarded president in office, they're obstructionists. If the tables are turned, libtards are "protecting America" and cite their "constitutional responsibility"

when there's a Republican president, libtards argue Supreme Court Justice nominees have to be chosen / approved by some bipartisan gang of senators. When the tables are turned, the hypocritical scumbags argue such nominees are the president's privilege (which it is btw).

when Obama was senator, he fought against W with every word he spoke, yet he complains about them behaving how he himself behaved

they're just worthless scum, empowered by the scum and parasites of this world.

it's the scum of this world that make good and smart and honest liberals look bad, but good and honest and smart liberals would never be empowered in a country where most good and smart and honest and working citizens are conservatives, so they latch onto the naive who swallow lying losing narratives without reflex. Our resident scum being case in point

carry on

 

[SheriffJoe]

 

[akphidelt]

LOL, except the Supreme Court does not claim the powers you say they are. LOL.

You are wrong again, LOL.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying an NFL referee can change the definition of the game's rules on a week-to-week basis, LOL.

The Constitution is probably written at a fourth or fifth grade level of understanding, and it's way beyond your capabilities. LOL

Lmao! No where did I say they change the rules. They interpret the rule book though. This is an argument of semantics. We have unemployment insurance because the SC says it is covered by the Const, whether you believe it or not. And you're a big time psycho, so I'm siding with the educated Constitutional lawyers here. No offense.

 

[akphidelt]

I just refuse to read everything this fraud posts, is he actually arguing against judicial review? is he arguing "constitutionality" is irrelevant or should be mitigated?

please tell me he's not THAT FUCKING STUPID, please

More of that libtard gene exposing itself. You see, in libtardville, every problem is always the Republicans fault. If the GOP controls the House and / or the Senate with a libtarded president in office, they're obstructionists. If the tables are turned, libtards are "protecting America" and cite their "constitutional responsibility"

when there's a Republican president, libtards argue Supreme Court Justice nominees have to be chosen / approved by some bipartisan gang of senators. When the tables are turned, the hypocritical scumbags argue such nominees are the president's privilege (which it is btw).

when Obama was senator, he fought against W with every word he spoke, yet he complains about them behaving how he himself behaved

they're just worthless scum, empowered by the scum and parasites of this world.

it's the scum of this world that make good and smart and honest liberals look bad, but good and honest and smart liberals would never be empowered in a country where most good and smart and honest and working citizens are conservatives, so they latch onto the naive who swallow lying losing narratives without reflex. Our resident scum being case in point

carry on

I'm not arguing any of that, lol. You're really dumb.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Lmao! No where did I say they change the rules. They interpret the rule book though. This is an argument of semantics. We have unemployment insurance because the SC says it is covered by the Const, whether you believe it or not. And you're a big time psycho, so I'm siding with the educated Constitutional lawyers here. No offense.

Show me where "unemployment insurance" is mentioned in the Constitution?

The federal government is only entitled to do those things the Constitution explicitly says it can do, with the Tenth Amendment providing that anything else is reserved to the states and to the people.

"The SC says..." (shopping for lawyers and judges that agree with your radical agenda) is not a valid argument.

As per the norm, you're just wrong.

 

[JDeuce]

Lmao! No where did I say they change the rules. They interpret the rule book though. This is an argument of semantics. We have unemployment insurance because the SC says it is covered by the Const, whether you believe it or not. And you're a big time psycho, so I'm siding with the educated Constitutional lawyers here. No offense.

No, they didn't.

Show me where the Supreme Court says what you claim...or where the word unemployment even appears in the Constitution. And please don't say the general welfare clause, because James Madison described exactly what that meant in the Federalist Papers...and it has nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

Your entire existence revolves around coming to this web site and lying every day.

 

[akphidelt]

Show me where "unemployment insurance" is mentioned in the Constitution?

The federal government is only entitled to do those things the Constitution explicitly says it can do, with the Tenth Amendment providing that anything else is reserved to the states and to the people.

"The SC says..." (shopping for lawyers and judges that agree with your radical agenda) is not a valid argument.

As per the norm, you're just wrong.

Lol, it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[akphidelt]

No, they didn't.

Show me where the Supreme Court says what you claim...or where the word unemployment even appears in the Constitution. And please don't say the general welfare clause, because James Madison described exactly what that meant in the Federalist Papers...and it has nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

Your entire existence revolves around coming to this web site and lying every day.

Lmao. I never said unemployment insurance was in the Const. The Supreme Court says it's a living document in which they can interpret based on evolving conditions. UI does not need to be in the Const for the SC to approve of it. Obviously, since they did like 80 years ago, lol. You're really dumb.

 

[SheriffJoe]

lmao. I never said unemployment insurance was in the const. The supreme court says it's a living document in which they can interpret based on evolving conditions. Ui does not need to be in the const for the sc to approve of it. Obviously, since they did like 80 years ago, lol. You're really dumb.

lmfao!

 

[JDeuce]

Show me where "unemployment insurance" is mentioned in the Constitution?

The federal government is only entitled to do those things the Constitution explicitly says it can do, with the Tenth Amendment providing that anything else is reserved to the states and to the people.

"The SC says..." (shopping for lawyers and judges that agree with your radical agenda) is not a valid argument.

As per the norm, you're just wrong.

He has never read the document, Joe. He just makes up shit as he goes along, and hilarity ensues whenever he tries to sound intelligent.

I love the general welfare clause argument as well. If the founding fathers intended to give Congress broad and limitless powers to do whatever they felt was in the best interests of giving society a huge safety net, then why the hell would they have explicitly spelled out the enumerated powers into the Constitution?

"So, here are the 18 things the federal government is authorized to do. And by the way, they can do whatever else they feel is right in the name of general welfare." Huh?

 

[akphidelt]

He has never read the document, Joe. He just makes up shit as he goes along, and hilarity ensues whenever he tries to sound intelligent.

I love the general welfare clause argument as well. If the founding fathers intended to give Congress broad and limitless powers to do whatever they felt was in the best interests of giving society a huge safety net, then why the hell would they have explicitly spelled out the enumerated powers into the Constitution?

"So, here are the 18 things the federal government is authorized to do. And by the way, they can do whatever else they feel is right in the name of general welfare." Huh?

Yea, except for the fact UI has been approved by the SC. I guess you guys are smarter than the SC. Very difficult decision.

 

[texansfan]

Aki, the results of your IQ test are in, it's negative.

 

[SheriffJoe]

He has never read the document, Joe. He just makes up shit as he goes along, and hilarity ensues whenever he tries to sound intelligent.

I love the general welfare clause argument as well. If the founding fathers intended to give Congress broad and limitless powers to do whatever they felt was in the best interests of giving society a huge safety net, then why the hell would they have explicitly spelled out the enumerated powers into the Constitution?

"So, here are the 18 things the federal government is authorized to do. And by the way, they can do whatever else they feel is right in the name of general welfare." Huh?

The Constitution grants the federal government very specific enumerated powers, so it is a huge stretch, to say the least, to class the general welfare clause as an enumerated power. "General welfare" is merely a statement of purpose that grants no power by itself. The intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal govt, so any interpretation that increases govt power ought to raise a red and come under rigorous scrutiny.

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v50n1/v50n1p5.pdf

Anyone can Google "FDR's court-packing scheme" and read how the SSAct became constitutional by judicial fiat only -- constitutional because "the SC says it is"

This is not what the framers intended.

 

[akphidelt]

The Constitution grants the federal government very specific enumerated powers, so it is a huge stretch, to say the least, to class the general welfare clause as an enumerated power. "General welfare" is merely a statement of purpose that grants no power by itself. The intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal govt, so any interpretation that increases govt power ought to raise a red and come under rigorous scrutiny.

Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v50n1/v50n1p5.pdf

Anyone can Google "FDR's court-packing scheme" and read how the SSAct became constitutional by judicial fiat only -- constitutional because "the SC says it is"

This is not what the framers intended.

What a shocker, the educated people of the Supreme Court disagree with you and have for the past 80 years. That's how dumb you guys are, lol.

 

[Seymour]

I took Con Law and I passed the federal side of the bar which Con law is a tested subject - and I just don't recall anything about unemployment insurance

 

[SheriffJoe]

What a shocker, the educated people of the Supreme Court disagree with you and have for the past 80 years. That's how dumb you guys are, lol.

Show us where "unemployment insurance" is mentioned in the Constitution.

Show us where the Kenyan's "ACA" is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[akphidelt]

Where are the words "unemployment insurance" in the Constitution?

Lol, I can't believe this has to be said. Those words are not in the Constitution. Nor do they have to be.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Lol, I can't believe this has to be said. Those words are not in the Constitution. Nor do they have to be.

Why are they not in the Constitution and why don't they have to be?

 

[akphidelt]

Why are they not in the Constitution and why don't they have to be?

They don't have to be in the Constitution as that is not what the Constitution was written for. The program does however fall under the powers granted by the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court.