can't help but feel alright
run through the day till the end of the night
the sun keeps coming up in your blue eyes
these are the best days of our lives
ATTENTION PLEASE HELP ME IDENTIFY THIS SONG
Link the video and I'll Shazam it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
That's... kinda paranoid.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
- St. Ronald Reagan
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
That's... kinda paranoid.
Prudence is not the same as paranoia. We sort of started this whole America thing because of oppression, thoug. No surprise it's baked into our institutions and our view of government.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Yeah, it's very possible to change our constitution with the amendment system, but unlikely to be changed unless something has extremely strong favor throughout the country. Things like, letting 18 year olds vote and making it so congressmen can't vote to give themselves raises (for the current session of congress)
i don't think it's at all paranoid (in the negative, critical sense) to 'not trust' the government. it's a good idea to seek transparency and be critical of any institution of which you are a member. governments- even in the first world- do reprehensible things all the time. we should be cognizant of that and always demand answers and be wary of opaqueness.
but we've also recognized that our values mandate a certain approach to our world and the other people who inhabit it, and that calls for organization and cooperation. at some point, somewhere, you have to cede leadership to someone or something to accomplish those goals.
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
Except for state governments, which are "closer to the people" and therefore more trustworthy, sensible, efficient, etc.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
It appears once in the preamble and once in article 1. The preamble isn't binding; article 1 is.
I'd argue that the broad interpretation of these clauses started a long time ago. I mean, if the interstate commerce clause can be used against private marijuana growers whose activity is neither 'interstate' nor 'commerce' (Raich) then we're basically past the point of no return on a Constitutionally-limited federal government.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
as a person who has tried snuff (the tobacco product) I can tell you that it is fucking awful
First time I tried it, it was this "whiskey snuff" thing
and the guy poured out a spoonful and was like
"Woops. Here let me just scoop some of that ba-* Sniiiiiiiiff "Hoookay then."
ah, the pain. It was... interesting. It was like I could see my sinuses, glowing with white-hot pain.
Once the pain subsided, and the nicotine effect subsided so that I was able to stand again, I went "alright got to even this out. Give me one for the other nostril."
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
W3 4o1d 74353 7ru745 7o b3 531f 3v1d3n7
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
can't help but feel alright
run through the day till the end of the night
the sun keeps coming up in your blue eyes
these are the best days of our lives
ATTENTION PLEASE HELP ME IDENTIFY THIS SONG
Link the video and I'll Shazam it.
It's from the Kinect Rush: A Disney Pixar Adventure Commercial, which i can't find anywhere
I am more than a little worried, after reading recaps of the healthcare argument today. When the government says 'trust me, this is a special case we won't expand' a million alarm bells go off in my head. I'm equally unmoved by "it is necessary" as a rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional".
I am worried.
"It's necessary" is a totally legitimate rebuttal of "it is unconstitutional" because if it's necessary and proper it is in fact constitutional. That said, trying to act like it isn't a tax is dumb, and I don't see why they're really jumping through so many hoops to act like it isn't. Worst case scenario it just doesn't get heard by the court for another year right?
I'm allowed to comment on this, as I obviously don't have an agenda :P
This makes no sense.
Doesn't "unconstitutional" just mean "not allowed by the constitution"
@TehSloth is wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause is subordinate... You cannot use it to do an unconstitutional thing because you believe it is nontheless necessary.
You are correct though, unconstitutional means the constitution does not allow it. Note that I'm not saying the constitution disallows it, because that's not the same thing. We are s government of limited powers, and the constitution does not (I argue, as do other more brilliant people) give the government this power - therefore the government cannot do it.
Oh, wow. That's kind of a retarded system right there, if you don't mind me saying.
I like it fine. Then again, I don't trust the government very much, and prefer it to be limited as much as sensibly possible.
Except for state governments, which are "closer to the people" and therefore more trustworthy, sensible, efficient, etc.
The main virtue of being closer to the people is that you can more easily get your hands around its neck. Might not be better, but it is weaker!
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
We mostly dealt with our constitution being outdated by ignoring parts of it. Worked fine.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
can't help but feel alright
run through the day till the end of the night
the sun keeps coming up in your blue eyes
these are the best days of our lives
ATTENTION PLEASE HELP ME IDENTIFY THIS SONG
Link the video and I'll Shazam it.
It's from the Kinect Rush: A Disney Pixar Adventure Commercial, which i can't find anywhere
Right the Stars - Best Days of Our Lives
(found by Googling "what is the song in the Kinect Pixar commercial?")
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
It appears once in the preamble and once in article 1. The preamble isn't binding; article 1 is.
I'd argue that the broad interpretation of these clauses started a long time ago. I mean, if the interstate commerce clause can be used against private marijuana growers whose activity is neither 'interstate' nor 'commerce' (Raich) then we're basically past the point of no return on a Constitutionally-limited federal government.
Raich doesn't attach here. I'll cite you I. A bit, if youd like to see the arguments. Anyhow, my hope is tht we aren't past the point of no return! We're at it right now.
The "fuck it, no one cares about that part of the constitution any more" argument is not persuasive at all.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
imo everyone gets to have one vice that's slowly killing them
Mine is living.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I used chewing tobacco for a LONG time until I quit because I love my wife (and to a lesser extent my mouth) more than the pure, unfiltered pleasure rush that it gives you.
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
you have to admit that America has a particular fixation with their founding fathers and the document they wrote, which could not have possibly predicted the world we live in and the radical cultural and technological changes we have wrought.
even the core humanistic/egalitarian principles of the Constitution may end up being replaced with a different politico-ethical philosophy.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
i'm not saying 'the constitution is old therefore it's wrong'
but i mean, it was written when people were property
maybe there's a conceivable basis to think it has more room for modification than we've thus far accomplished
there are many republicans who just regard the idea of any amendment as unconstitutional, which is patently ridiculous
I used chewing tobacco for a LONG time until I quit because I love my wife (and to a lesser extent my mouth) more than the pure, unfiltered pleasure rush that it gives you.
Awwww yeah, that is some good fermented, partially decomposed plant material.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
Posts
I would be so fat if it weren't for the constant gym-ratting and the physical nature of my employment.
Link the video and I'll Shazam it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
- St. Ronald Reagan
Welcome to America.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
Ahhhhhh!
Prudence is not the same as paranoia. We sort of started this whole America thing because of oppression, thoug. No surprise it's baked into our institutions and our view of government.
Yeah, it's very possible to change our constitution with the amendment system, but unlikely to be changed unless something has extremely strong favor throughout the country. Things like, letting 18 year olds vote and making it so congressmen can't vote to give themselves raises (for the current session of congress)
twitch.tv/tehsloth
A WHOLE SEMANA FOR ME TO WASTE OH GOD
but we've also recognized that our values mandate a certain approach to our world and the other people who inhabit it, and that calls for organization and cooperation. at some point, somewhere, you have to cede leadership to someone or something to accomplish those goals.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
I'm pretty sure the other kind of snuff is too.
It appears once in the preamble and once in article 1. The preamble isn't binding; article 1 is.
I'd argue that the broad interpretation of these clauses started a long time ago. I mean, if the interstate commerce clause can be used against private marijuana growers whose activity is neither 'interstate' nor 'commerce' (Raich) then we're basically past the point of no return on a Constitutionally-limited federal government.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
First time I tried it, it was this "whiskey snuff" thing
and the guy poured out a spoonful and was like
"Woops. Here let me just scoop some of that ba-* Sniiiiiiiiff "Hoookay then."
ah, the pain. It was... interesting. It was like I could see my sinuses, glowing with white-hot pain.
Once the pain subsided, and the nicotine effect subsided so that I was able to stand again, I went "alright got to even this out. Give me one for the other nostril."
Questionmark
W3 4o1d 74353 7ru745 7o b3 531f 3v1d3n7
It's from the Kinect Rush: A Disney Pixar Adventure Commercial, which i can't find anywhere
The main virtue of being closer to the people is that you can more easily get your hands around its neck. Might not be better, but it is weaker!
We mostly dealt with our constitution being outdated by ignoring parts of it. Worked fine.
Strawmen are straw.
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
as an obese smoker,
not that I particularly "trust" mine, especially the one right now, which is essentially led by a neo-fascist
brb emailing your boss and the fbi
Right the Stars - Best Days of Our Lives
(found by Googling "what is the song in the Kinect Pixar commercial?")
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Raich doesn't attach here. I'll cite you I. A bit, if youd like to see the arguments. Anyhow, my hope is tht we aren't past the point of no return! We're at it right now.
The "fuck it, no one cares about that part of the constitution any more" argument is not persuasive at all.
I'm not sure if we ever actually did change to constitution to parliamentarism.
as an obese programmer,
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
Mine is living.
It's OK, I can read leet.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rGTXHvPCQ
you have to admit that America has a particular fixation with their founding fathers and the document they wrote, which could not have possibly predicted the world we live in and the radical cultural and technological changes we have wrought.
even the core humanistic/egalitarian principles of the Constitution may end up being replaced with a different politico-ethical philosophy.
i'm not saying 'the constitution is old therefore it's wrong'
but i mean, it was written when people were property
maybe there's a conceivable basis to think it has more room for modification than we've thus far accomplished
there are many republicans who just regard the idea of any amendment as unconstitutional, which is patently ridiculous
Awwww yeah, that is some good fermented, partially decomposed plant material.