"So why put your trust in them? Try thinking for yourself instead."
Why put your trust in them? How about because SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of the government created by the Founding Fathers in the CONSTITUTION.
Your eagerness to dismiss SCOTUS reveals your contempt for everything in the Constitution that doesn't make you happy. It's not a buffet where you can pick and choose. It's the CONSTITUTION, and you don't get to reject SCOTUS and then say you're just following the Constitution.
"Bill, you don't need a law degree to understand the basics of the Constitution. "
Actually, it appears that the law degree would be very useful for you, since you think your opinion is right and SCOTUS is wrong. You got that backwards.
"supreme court justices often disagree with each other, and 5-4 decisions are common." But Skycastle always knows what is correct without even having (or appreciating) the benefit of a law degree. If you don't believe it, just ask him.
"So why put your trust in them?" Undermining the judiciary! Your Russian handlers must be very proud!
"Try thinking for yourself instead." Good advice coming, as it does, from a bot! If we cannot even trust the Supreme Court, we certainly cannot trust you.
Bill, you don't need a law degree to understand the basics of the Constitution. One basic is limited federal power. The Constitution was designed to limit power to the federal government by giving it only certain, specified duties, listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the only way to legally give additional powers to the federal government is by Constitutional Amendment.
Do you disagree?
If you disagree, can you explain what the 10th Amendment means?
BTW - supreme court justices often disagree with each other, and 5-4 decisions are common. So why put your trust in them? Try thinking for yourself instead.
I'm going with Mr. K's characterization...paid troll or bot sounds about right.
Even so, I will give you the opportunity to clarify where exactly you got your law degree. Your post is so full of debunked legal fantasies that you might want to ask your alma mater for a refund.
"So the feds have no legal power over these issues, and when they make laws here it's an "usurpation of power" and is totally unconstitutional."
You do realize, of course, that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. SCOTUS IS in the Constitution, so I'm going with their reading of it. Not yours.
Matthew, since you asked, the Constitution leaves it up to the states to develop environmental regulations. Read the 10th Amendment if you're confused here. Seriously, read it and try to understand it, then we can discuss it.
You want to know how the EPA, DOE, wildlife rule, Obamacare, and federal money for Planned Parenthood are all unconstitutional? The answer is simple:
Those powers were never given to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. That's how the Constitution was written, so that only limited, specified, delegated powers were given to the feds. They're listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. All other powers indeed most powers were left to the states and the people. When the people decide that the federal government needs more power, they're free to pass Constitutional Amendments which give it more power. This basic idea of limited federal power was the cornerstone of the Constitution. The Founders built it around that idea, so as to prevent federal tyranny. They left it up to the states and the people to decide if the feds needed a new power, and required the feds to get their permission first, so that the feds couldn't just take control of areas which were not under their legal control. This was meant to protect our rights from federal abuse. But power over the environment, wildlife, education, and health was never given to the feds, not in the original Constitution and not in the amendments. So the feds have no legal power over these issues, and when they make laws here it's an "usurpation of power" and is totally unconstitutional. Do you understand this? If not, consider the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). Why was it passed?
Do not bother addressing comments to "Skycastle." If it is not a Russian bot, then he is a poorly paid troll. How is the weather over there in Albania, "Skycastle?"
Without the EPA, who will develop environmental regulations? Do you seriously want your rivers being polluted without a government agency to protect them? How exactly are these agencies "unconstitutional"? You do realize per the Hyde Amendment that our Federal tax dollars CANNOT BE USED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD TO PERFORM ABORTIONS, with few exceptions.
Awesome! I LOVE Trump's agenda. We need to terminate the EPA, DOE, wildlife rule, and Obamacare for the simple reason that they are ALL unconstitutional! None of those powers are given to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, therefore they are usurpations of power - something forbidden by the Constitution. I say get rid of all illegal federal laws and agencies.
And defunding that abomination called Planned Parenthood (founded by the vile racist and genocidal maniac Margaret Sanger) would be wonderful. Aside from such funding being unconstitutional, govt. should NEVER steal taxpayer money to kill unborn children. That's so wrong it's vomitous.
Now unions, they can be a horror. When I worked for a utility company, I was FORCED to become a dues paying member of the the IBEW, and that rotten group used my dues money to support sickening Leftist candidates, whom I couldn't stand. Forcing people to pay money to groups which support horrible political candidates is just evil.
The second I get my ballot, I'm voting for Skorman!
this is the fight of our generation... big money vs. working people. geezerette, developers and the big business are trying to buy another election. the rest of us need to step up and let the rich old geezers know they cannot buy the vote any longer. vote for YOUR best interests!! don't believe the fake alternative crap that is being printed by the geezerette. mainly... VOTE!!!
I could not agree more that Mr. Skorman is being defamed over his opposition to the land swap, but I must complain about Jill Gaelber not acting on the facts to get the Land Swap overturned, see Facebook page COS Land Swap. The public is being lied to about the Swap and its appraisal and members of Council may not remain silent.
I am sensing that the onslaught of this groundswell of negative attack campaigning, particularly directed at Mr. Skorman who has worked tirelessly for the community - has sapped the energy and interest out of this particular council election. And, that the mud-slinging is not playing well with local voters. And will backfire with Mr. Skorman winning by a substantial margin. And that your former commissioner associate will be looking for work a month after the election.
This comment has no basis in fact and should be deleted from this blog. This is so off-base that a reply is unnecessary.
Politicians littering public land with signs is the bigger problem, we should end that.
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation