Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Are you freakin' KIDDING me?

Umm, the XIII Ammendment states, CLEARLY: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Also try the XV Ammendment if that wasn't clear enough.

---

Take my exact quote and tell me how it is incorrect. Read, then respond.

quote:

---

This would be a case of "power not delegated" as there is no guideline allowing or prohibiting a congressional action authorizing use of force. And since Congress represents the states...

---

The states have no representation. The people (i.e. Corporate backers) are represented directly by their Senators and Representatives. If the states had representation they would appoint Senators instead of having them chosen in a popular vote.

Also you are not understanding the X amendment. Powers not delegated under the Constitution are not supposed to be in the sphere of the Federal government. If the Constitution doesn't expressly provide for something - there is a process called 'amendments' should they need something else. If the Federal government begins exercising rights not under the Constitution that is by definition unConstitutional.

Let me allow James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to take the argument again:

James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are ÔÇ£few and definedÔÇØ and extend ÔÇ£principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,ÔÇØ whereas the powers reserved to the states are ÔÇ£numerous and indefiniteÔÇØ and ÔÇ£extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.ÔÇØ

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as the foundation of the Constitution and added, to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn  is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

quote:

---

I agree that it is a slippery slope and I also agree that the welfare state we are fast becoming is dangerous. But, unfortunately for your argument, the Constitution also EXPRESSLY allows such taxation.

---

Again - I haven't stated anything about the taxation being unConstitutional (though I'd like to see it overturned). The Constitution does not expressly allow such spending however.

Are you aware that you have no legal right to Social Security? Are you aware that the Supreme Court found it unConstitutional to have funds earmarked for it - and that Social Security 'contributions' are simply part of the general tax and are spent on many other things? (FLEMMING V. NESTOR)

The very fact that government does something does not make it Constitutional.

quote:

---

You're kidding, right? If we simply followed the Constitution without interpreting it or making calls based upon what it doesn't cover, we wouldn't have evolved past the 1920s.

---

Sure - there are things called amendments which the Constitution provides for. As I stated "There was nothing in the Constitution that apparently prevented you from owning slaves." and you pointed out that the XIII and XIV amendments did. Well they do now. They didn't always which means my point still stands.

What you suggest sounds a little like legislating from the bench. You sound like you support the Federal government doing whatever it wants as long as the SCOTUS doesn't cry foul.

I believe in unrestricted liberty and freedom - along with the responsibility that goes with it. The growth of government power and scope is the enemy of freedom.

If the legislature wants to pass its powers to the Executive - they should pass an amendment providing for this. To do it anyway is by definition unConstitutional.