Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

The Constitution

ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 7:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So plenty of people are under the assumption that the government does not violate the Constitution. These people give me headaches.

These are just 10 violations the government has in fact committed.

http://dailycaller.com...

Discuss.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 11:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Article wrote:
#8. " Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market"s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations.

I swear, every time I hear someone arguing against net neutrality, it makes my blood boil. If you think that it is a good idea to give ISPs broad permissions to determine what can and cannot go through their network while so many Americans will have hardly any choice over their ISP for the foreseeable future, then you cannot be said to be "pro free-market" at all - instead, you are too shortsighted in the pursuit of free-market ideology to see that any entity given a position as a gatekeeper for entire sectors of the economy can screw things up. Moreover, you are allowing ISPs to interfere with what is the closest thing we've ever had to a market with perfect competition, with almost no barriers to entry. Already we see ISPs expanding this barrier of entry enough to trip people trying to enter the Internet marketplace (mostly cable companies with conflicts of interest with streaming providers). If net neutrality laws are not passed, these barriers to entry will expand to hurdles, and then walls outright blocking innovation.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:30:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 7:51:04 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
So plenty of people are under the assumption that the government does not violate the Constitution. These people give me headaches.

These are just 10 violations the government has in fact committed.

http://dailycaller.com...

Discuss.

I stopped at the first point they brought up:

#10. " 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love and honor those who put themselves in harm"s way for our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article 1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for the general welfare, NOT for individuals or preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if they so choose.

To think that 9/11 responders were not concerned with the general welfare and are somehow comparable to special interest groups is absolutely asinine and discredits the source and its author.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 10:17:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd also point out how #9 requires some comedy interpretation to make it work.

#9. " Checks and Balances Failure: The Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was Congress when President Obama became the chairman of the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the Constitution forbids the president (and all other office-holders) from accepting any present, foreign office or title from a foreign country or a foreign potentate unless it is specifically authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence from affecting America"s internal affairs.

Article 1.9.8 (they were awkwardly unspecific, but this is the most charitable section they could have meant), states:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The problems that arise are that:

1) Barack Obama did not receive a title of nobility from the United Nations
2) Barack Obama took presidency of the UNSC for a few days due to the fact that the president is de facto the highest-ranking official from the president nation. De jure, it is the United States, not Barack Obama, who is the "President of the United Nations Security Council" at that time.
3) The United Nations is neither a King, nor a Prince, or a foreign State.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...