"What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government gets funded?"

[poncho]

FTW, you will probably be amazed by this, but ...

You guys are overlooking one small detail. The USA was founded as a constitutional republic. Hence the term . . . "nation of laws not men".

It was also founded on the idea of individualism not collectivism. Our republic has a set of laws that govern the government the constitution. When these laws are being followed by the government we have good governance. When they are not we have tyranny.

Today we have tyranny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements,
First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law.

Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.
A Republic recognizes Law is unchangeable, or at least that it can only be changed by a higher source than government. In a Republic the concept of “collective sovereignty” cannot exist, except with recognition that the State or nation, as a body of sovereigns, can speak through one elected voice; though that one voice can never lawfully interfere with the private rights of the individual sovereigns.


“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

A Constitutional Republic is a government created and controlled by the law of a constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America is, in the context of law based on the Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Constitutional_republic




"The tenth commandment sends a message to collectivists, to people who believe wealth is best obtained by redistribution. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell." -- P.J. O'Rourke

 

[Aaron]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

Sticky. :wavey:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It was also founded on the idea of individualism not collectivism.

Then why are you insisting that we acquiesce to a socialist government and a nationalized health care system? That is the very definition of collectivism!

 

[Don]

Then why are you insisting that we acquiesce to a socialist government and a nationalized health care system? That is the very definition of collectivism!

Poncho isn't. That's why he followed those words with "Today we have tyranny."

 

[poncho]

Poncho isn't. That's why he followed those words with "Today we have tyranny."

Evidently TND equates the constitution and liberty with socialism.

 

[Aaron]

:type:

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

Sticky.

 

[Aaron]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

Um, Senator, you might want to review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives all spending power to Congress. And perhaps someone can explain to Reid how Congress works, which is that nothing passes unless both the House and the Senate agree to it. Pretty elementary, I know, but this is Harry Reid so . . . I . . . am . . . typing . . . slowly . . . such . . . that . . . he . . . might . . . somehow . . . understand.
​

 

[Aaron]

http://www.caintv.com/reid-what-right-do-they-have-t


Dear Senator Reid, please read your copy of the constitution. The house does have that right.

Um, Senator, you might want to review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives all spending power to Congress. And perhaps someone can explain to Reid how Congress works, which is that nothing passes unless both the House and the Senate agree to it. Pretty elementary, I know, but this is Harry Reid so . . . I . . . am . . . typing . . . slowly . . . such . . . that . . . he . . . might . . . somehow . . . understand.
​

:love2: Sticky

 

[Aaron]

Um, Senator, you might want to review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives all spending power to Congress. And perhaps someone can explain to Reid how Congress works, which is that nothing passes unless both the House and the Senate agree to it. Pretty elementary, I know, but this is Harry Reid so . . . I . . . am . . . typing . . . slowly . . . such . . . that . . . he . . . might . . . somehow . . . understand.
​

:love2: Sticky

:1_grouphug:

 

[FollowTheWay]

You guys are overlooking one small detail. The USA was founded as a constitutional republic. Hence the term . . . "nation of laws not men".

It was also founded on the idea of individualism not collectivism. Our republic has a set of laws that govern the government the constitution. When these laws are being followed by the government we have good governance. When they are not we have tyranny.

Today we have tyranny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements,
First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law.

Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.
A Republic recognizes Law is unchangeable, or at least that it can only be changed by a higher source than government. In a Republic the concept of “collective sovereignty” cannot exist, except with recognition that the State or nation, as a body of sovereigns, can speak through one elected voice; though that one voice can never lawfully interfere with the private rights of the individual sovereigns.


“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

A Constitutional Republic is a government created and controlled by the law of a constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America is, in the context of law based on the Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Constitutional_republic




"The tenth commandment sends a message to collectivists, to people who believe wealth is best obtained by redistribution. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Do you actually believe that the U.S. could be effectively ruled only by the Constitution? I hope you include the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments. How did these come about? They were developed through working our democratic process. What did the framers of the Constitution know about air travel, nuclear weapons, automobiles, telephones, computers, the internet, leveraged worthless mortgage "investments", etc. It's sad to be so out of it to assume that almost 250 year old laws can rule a nation. Maybe the UK should revert to the Magna Carta.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Do you actually believe that the U.S. could be effectively ruled only by the Constitution?

That's got to be the most ridiculous, ignorant question ever asked, not just on this board, but anywhere.

I hope you include the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments.

They are part of the Constitution! Great googly-moogly, how do you not know that? The answer is, you do. You simply wanted to pick a fight. Nice try.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's sad to be so out of it to assume that almost 250 year old laws can rule a nation. Maybe the UK should revert to the Magna Carta.

Liberals like this and Obama hate the Constitution. It is too restrictive for their socialist agenda.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Liberals like this and Obama hate the Constitution. It is too restrictive for their socialist agenda.

Yup. :thumbsup:

 

[saturneptune]

Do you actually believe that the U.S. could be effectively ruled only by the Constitution? I hope you include the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments. How did these come about? .

So lets look at the evidence. Since 1787, politicians have added millions of pages to the Constitution for help the President and Congress govern. So how has that gone for us? Does the present state of affairs give you a clue?

 

[poncho]

Do you actually believe that the U.S. could be effectively ruled only by the Constitution? I hope you include the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments. How did these come about? They were developed through working our democratic process. What did the framers of the Constitution know about air travel, nuclear weapons, automobiles, telephones, computers, the internet, leveraged worthless mortgage "investments", etc. It's sad to be so out of it to assume that almost 250 year old laws can rule a nation. Maybe the UK should revert to the Magna Carta.

Your first mistake is believing the constitution was written so that government could effectively rule us.

The constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government so it wouldn't become our rulers. Period. The federal government was formed by the states to protect our liberties and from invasion and to maintain an even playing field in commerce so monopoly men and their organizations like the VOC better known as the Dutch East India Company wouldn't use it's political clout to destroy it's competition and eventually seize control of government away from the people. Which for all intents and purposes the multinational corporations and global banksters of today have now done.

Not to effectively rule us.

The bill of rights. How did it come about? At first the founders weren't going to include a bill of rights because they believed as they said in the DOC that it was self evident to everyone that man was born with inalienable rights. Only after much debate did they decide to include a bill of rights. The fear at that time was the government would view these as the only rights to be protected. But now the government just views them as obstacles to it's ever expanding powers that need to be over come.

Ah the old the founders didn't have a crystal ball fallacy.

The founders didn't have to see into the future to understand man could not be trusted to govern without strict limits on his authority. They had the whole of history and the nature of man to guide them.

The nature of man and his tendency to abuse his power didn't end with the invention of the airplane, nuclear weapons, the internet and smart phone. If anything it became more of a threat to our freedom. As the NSA and it's destruction of our privacy and the fourth amendment has illustrated.

What's really sad is how Americans have been dumbed down to the point that we believe it's better to be ruled by men (of our choice) that make their own laws contrary to the constitution that enhance their own usurped power and authority.

The government we have today rules through crisis management. It seizes upon every crisis as an opportunity to expand it's power and limit our liberties. It's not just the democrats or just the republicans that do this. Both parties engage in crisis management to increase government in size and scope.

 

[FollowTheWay]

That's got to be the most ridiculous, ignorant question ever asked, not just on this board, but anywhere.

They are part of the Constitution! Great googly-moogly, how do you not know that? The answer is, you do. You simply wanted to pick a fight. Nice try.

Tell what Fox News tells you is part of the Constitution. Please googly-moogly yourself to the Constitution as preserved by the the government archives.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I guess you flunked high school history and would probably fail the test that immigrants must pass to become citizens.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Liberals like this and Obama hate the Constitution. It is too restrictive for their socialist agenda.

Whenever someone is faced with facts they can't refute they resort to name-calling and ad hominem arguments. That's what Rush and Fox News teach you to do.

I love the Constitution and my country. Do you? Really? Then why don't you support the way a democracy is supposed to work? As Lincoln said, a government Of the PEOPLE, For the PEOPLE and By the PEOPLE. In a democracy the majority rules not the NRA or Grover Norquist.

I've never talked about seceding from the union or about the "tyranny of the masses." You and your ilk do. Tell me how that represents supporting the Constitution or the beautiful idea of America, the shining light on the hill that millions of people around the world wanted to come to and become a part of.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Your first mistake is believing the constitution was written so that government could effectively rule us.

The constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government so it wouldn't become our rulers. Period. The federal government was formed by the states to protect our liberties and from invasion and to maintain an even playing field in commerce so monopoly men and their organizations like the VOC better known as the Dutch East India Company wouldn't use it's political clout to destroy it's competition and eventually seize control of government away from the people. Which for all intents and purposes the multinational corporations and global banksters of today have now done.

Not to effectively rule us.

The bill of rights. How did it come about? At first the founders weren't going to include a bill of rights because they believed as they said in the DOC that it was self evident to everyone that man was born with inalienable rights. Only after much debate did they decide to include a bill of rights. The fear at that time was the government would view these as the only rights to be protected. But now the government just views them as obstacles to it's ever expanding powers that need to be over come.

Ah the old the founders didn't have a crystal ball fallacy.

The founders didn't have to see into the future to understand man could not be trusted to govern without strict limits on his authority. They had the whole of history and the nature of man to guide them.

The nature of man and his tendency to abuse his power didn't end with the invention of the airplane, nuclear weapons, the internet and smart phone. If anything it became more of a threat to our freedom. As the NSA and it's destruction of our privacy and the fourth amendment has illustrated.

What's really sad is how Americans have been dumbed down to the point that we believe it's better to be ruled by men (of our choice) that make their own laws contrary to the constitution that enhance their own usurped power and authority.

The government we have today rules through crisis management. It seizes upon every crisis as an opportunity to expand it's power and limit our liberties. It's not just the democrats or just the republicans that do this. Both parties engage in crisis management to increase government in size and scope.

In brief, you seem to advocate having no government at all (anarchy). You say that "Your first mistake is believing the constitution was written so that government could effectively rule us." What then is the guideline by which we are governed? I support democracy.

 

[Don]

In brief, you seem to advocate having no government at all (anarchy). You say that "Your first mistake is believing the constitution was written so that government could effectively rule us." What then is the guideline by which we are governed? I support democracy.

There is a difference between "ruling" and "governing."

 

[Don]

And by the way: did you ever acknowledge that the House DOES have the right to submit appropriations bills to the Senate identifying approved fundng lines?