Did You See This @ FoxNews.com?

The only constitutional powers the members of Congress have are those given to them by the US Constitution, any powers not given to them in the Constitution do not belong to them, so any power they give themselves even with the help of the SCOTUS is unconstitutional.

 

Nope...since the Constitution gives SCOTUS the power to interpret the Constitution, you are incorrect, JG.

 

There are big differences in what a state and local government is supposed to do and what the federal government is supposed to do.

While Socialism may not equal Communism, even the Communist know that Socialism is the bridge to Communism!

 

The SCOTUS does not have the power change, take away from or add to the US Constitution. It is not only the SCOTUS job to understand and follow the Constitution, but it is the job of every politician and every voter.

Most people have been indoctrinated to believe the only people capable of understanding and interpreting the Constitution are the 9 members of the SCOTUS, that is not what the founding fathers had in mind regardless of what some politicians, our Attorney General or the government schools may say.

 

The U.S constitution does no such thing, MP. The SCOTUS grabbed that power in 1803:

"The Supreme Court, under John Marshall, defined itself with its historic 1803 decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress and the state legislatures."

- SOURCE

 

Other than establishing it, Article III of the U.S. Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, powers nor organization of the Supreme Court.

"[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

MP, if you would like to learn more about the US Constitution I can highly recommend the IOTC:

http://www.iotconline.com/index.php?id=9

 

Can you find where in the U.S. constitution that the federal government is given the specific power to give my tax money to PBS, BiR?

I hope your family emergency wasn't too serious.

 

I don't think so. The Elastic Clause merely allows the Congress to pass any law necessary for the carrying out of the previously listed powers and I don't see funding PBS in any of those powers, even taking into account that it was written well before TV and radio existed.

 

Yeah, I know. The centralists in the federal government evidently believe they can do just about anything they want if they pass a law, regardless of what is stated in the U.S. constitution.

 

Congress either believes they have allot of authority in many areas that they don't have the authority by the US Constitution, or they simply just ignore the Constitution and spend our tax dollars however they see fit.

I don't disagree with you that PBS has some great programming, but great programming doesn't justify spending federal tax dollars in my opinion, there are many other groups that provide great programming and excellent educational resources, but I don't think they should receive government handouts either.

We need Congressmen who understand that the only powers they have are those granted to them by the US Constitution, regardless of how good their intentions may be, if the US Constitution doesn't grant them authority in certain areas, then they don't have that authority, even if the SCOTUS says otherwise!

 

As to the educational value, if there is a market for it, it will be picked up. Take the NOGGIN network for example. My son loves watching Elmo and Sesame Street, along with other great programming on that station, and it is not a public broadcasting station. The whole idea that Elmo and Big Bird will disappear if PBS does is simply not true. Advertizers will support it, and it will be picked up by another station if it is quality programming and people want to see it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Hey, I have to pay for the war in Iraq.... </font>[/QUOTE]I'm still wondering if your main point is that funding should continue for public broadcasting or you're lambasting FOX over their "fair and balanced" slogan. Maybe both?

 

There is no reason for Federal dollars being spent on "Public broadcasting" Even if they were promoting my conservative view they would be in violation of the constitution.

Fox, as a commercial entity can display their version of news any way they see fit and they will be judged in their ability to maintain the income of advertisers dollars.

 

You said "By the way, Johnv, we attacked them, remember?".

But I'm unclear why you were addressing me in this statement. I wasn't engaged in a conversation with you at the time.

 

Ken,

How do you figure the PBS bit is unconstitutional?

 

PBS should have been aborted, that is murdered before birth, for those liberals who don't know what abortion is!

 

I find nothing in Article I that gives the Congress the power to take money from me and give to another person or to an organization such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.