Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers 2030
I asked you a bunch of pertinent questions and you just snipped them. What have you asked that I snipped with no answer?
snip Yes, exactly. Double-talk occurs when the surface meaning of words or phrases is inaccurate...
Yeah... right. Gold and silver coin aren't THE tender as specified by the U.S. Consbreastution because of the existence of the penny (note: one of the first official U.S. coins minted was the silver half dime). Article 1 Sec. 10 is struck down by a copper penny says Znu.
Right... and it did so with no Consbreastutional authority.
The power to emit bills of credit is not listed as a "foregoing Power"... in fact, it's not listed *at all*.
The "modern" U.S. government? Are you claiming that the U.S. government is now so "modern" that the U.S. Consbreastution need not be adhered to?
Yes, you should have read this Wikipedia entry which began:
"The Court invoked the doctrine of implied powers in the Consbreastution, which allowed the Federal government to pbutt laws not expressly provided for in the Consbreastution's list of enumerated powers as long as they are in useful furtherance of those powers.
'OF THOSE POWERS'.
I prefer not to debate the same issues in five different places in each post. I think you're confused. It's your nutty reading that makes the penny unconsbreastutional. I see...
Where is the power to emit bills of credit? Well whatd'ya know... it doesn't exist..
It continues:
"The fundamental case established the following two principles: 1. that the Consbreastution grants to Congress implied powers inherent in the nature of the Consbreastution as a blueprint for a practically functional government, and 2. that state action may not impede valid consbreastutional exercises of power by the Federal government."
See that in item 1? "powers inherent in the nature of the Consbreastution"
"the consent of the people" who are sovereign... unlike the federal government, which is not a sovereign enbreasty. Do you understand what that means?
There is *no* implication of emitting bills of credit anywhere in the Consbreastution.
The key wording here is that they remain *within* the enumerated powers... obviously, this cannot include emitting bills of credit because **nowhere** is this an enumerated power. Are you next going to claim that creation of a bank (an implication for which it can be argued makes sense) implies emitting bills of credit as a "useful furtherance"? I don't see how you can avoid it to make your argunment. So where does it all end?
Also from your link:
"The opinion mandated that Congress has implied power that needs to be related to the text of the Consbreastution, but not all powers need to be within the text"
Show me the related text concerning emitting bills of credit. Look, this isn't difficult, I fail to see why you are having such a hard time with it. The Consbreastution provides for as much flexibility as we need... the problem is that the process to utilize that flexibility was and is being bypbutted at our peril. Even worse, there are lots of people like you that don't understand this is the case. I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if it had been done properly... but it clearly wasn't. By the way, nice snipping again, Znu.
-- "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls like myself" - Snit