Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Rudy Giuliani: Obama Doesn't Love America" video.

As in what? Liberals constantly violate the constitution with their policies.
2
He violated the 10th amendment with that bill and we still haven't recovered yet from the recession.
1
jensen1901 The stock market is high because the federal government dumped $85 billion a month into it, you know, giving money to the rich. The economic recovery is slow, we should have recovered by now.
1
It does violate the 10th amendment. Nowhere is the issue of healthcare listed in the constitution thus it goes under the 10th amendment being a state issue. Why must people keep ruining my day with their amazing demonstrations of utter stupidity?
1
gilless429 The supreme court also ruled the patriot act to be constitutional, do you support that?
1
gilless429 5 of the 9 justices say it is constitutional. What is we had 100 justices? This was a law that had a hard time getting 60 democrats to agree to that came down to a simple majority of 9 justices who supposedly are suppose to be experts on the constitution. I find that disturbing as is. The constitution wasn't supposed to be debated but it has. When I see that ruling I see 4 justices feeling that it isn't constitutional so it isn't to me. If it passed 9-0 then fine, but a 5-4 vote doesn't convince me. Using the constitutional argument isn't silly.
1
gilless429 Do you know what it takes to revise the constitution? It takes a lot, not some simple majority of 9 people. What is written in the constitution isn't generic, it is cut and dry. So if there is any doubt that if a law is constitutional then it isn't. If 5 said Obamacare wasn't constitutional and 4 said it was then Obamacare wouldn't be a law, no different it it were 8-1. Now if Obamacare was a law and passed on a 9-0 vote, and then years later a repeal of it was passed and was voted 5-4, then Obamacare will still be a law since there is doubt. 9 votes is small. As a man who studies science and statistics 9 values is a worthless data set and should harldy be looked at. The constitution and the federal government in itself was supposed to be resistant to change. It can be change but it was supposed to be resistant to it because the founding fathers (several at least) saw a time where future politicians would use government in their favor and it had to be avoided.
1
gilless429 The constitution isn't be changed, it is being interpreted and being interpreted wrong. Out of 9 justices 4 feel that something is unconstitutional but a law still becomes a law? We have had laws voted and unconstitutional and then years later were voted as constitutional despite not one single word in the constitution being change, it is a problem Eventually people are going to ignore the constitution completely and deny freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right against illegal search and seizure and so on in the name of "safety" and "equality". It isn't how the country was designed that the simple majority ends up deciding everything. Watch the video "Should Majorities Decide Everything?" by Learn Liberty. There they discuss the Kilo vs. City of New London case where the supreme court ruled against the 5th amendment in favor of a private company. That is not the system we were supposed to have. The ruling was a 5-4 vote. The constitution wasn't supposed to be controversial, it was supposed to be clear. A 5-4 vote isn't clear. I find it scary you think it is when clearly the results would be different with 100 justices, or even 50. That woman in that case was denied her 5th amendment right, so the SC ruled wrong in that case even though by your standards they did.
1
gilless429 You just compared the decisions of the SC justices to a soccer match........really? Do you know what it takes to get a new amendment in the constitution? It isn't a simple majority for a reason. Reconsider what you just wrote there. Slippery slopes are used because they happen. Take gun laws for example. We had a 2nd amendment right. Now las are being created after every shooting and when another a happens more laws are pushed. There was a ban on magazine limits where 100 round drums are ban. People said "why not" as in who needs one. Now years later in NY they pushed and got limits of less than 15 rounds. Some states don't allow 30 round magazines. Eventually after the next shooting we will only be allowed to own six shooters. In the state of Washington a law as passed (and eventually killed) saying that the local sheriff could randomly search anyone's home who owned an "assault rifle". That is the fear people have coming to truth. Take income taxes. There never use to be federal income taxes, only a tax on the states. After the war of 1812 one was proposed but shot down. We had some temporary ones but they were fought due to being unconstitutional and then stopped. Eventually an amendment made it constitutional. Now federal income taxes are a mess with tax breaks no one knows about where only people who can hire accountants know about or where the top 10% pay 70% of taxes and so on. It is a mess. Slippery slopes do happen. There is a reason why the founding fathers wanted strict limitations on the federal government and governments as a whole. They realized that if you ignored those limitations then you will develop an oppressive government. It isn't fear mongering but something we need to be aware of. The constitution wasn't supposed to be overhauled every 20 years. Jefferson argued with Hamilton that the constitution was supposed to be follow very strictly with strict limitations on the federal government and not have flexible bounds like Hamilton wanted. It isn't written anywhere that the constitution was supposed to be changed every 20 years. We can have corrupt congress members and a corrupt president, that is why there is a need for strict limitation on the federal government. The majority of people don't know what goes one in politics beyond their own representative (and usually not even that). They just want to mind their own lives. There is a need for government but what is it's role domestically is subjective hints why state rights was created which Jefferson supported. It doesn't matter if I like a decision or not, strict limitations were to prevent people from creating an oppressive federal government. A 5-4 vote says that 4 people feel that a law is unconstitutional, it shouldn't matter if I agree with the law or not, the constitution was to prevent that type of feeling from happening. You have this feeling that I disagree with a law so I am just finding any excuse to say it is unconstitutional, but if a law were to pass that I agree with (most likely not due to my state rights stance) on a 5-4 vote then I will support it. That isn't true. I don't change my stance on an issue to fit my needs.
1
gilless429 I did read you Jefferson quote and feel you misunderstood it if you knew his stance on the constitution. He wanted a revolution ever 20 years, but he wanted a strict following of the constitution. You cherry picked a Jefferson quote and misused it. I also never said that the SC decisions added amendments, I was getting at that it didn't take just a simple majority of the states. And you analogy was asinine, I can say that in golf you win with the lowest scores, so the lowest votes should win, simple. I do care about debates, and I do listen, the problem is that you don't. You made accusations on me and did so again thinking that I said that the SC puts in place new amendments. Point to me that quote and I will admit I am wrong but until then all you did was make an accusation. You are pushing the stance that a law is constitutional and feel there is no debate about it when there were 4 justices that feel differently. There is something to talk about here about the system in place. Now go ahead and take your ball and go home.
1
Ronin Dave Obamacare violates the 10th amendment, that is one. The department of ed. does so as well. Push of gun laws violates the second amendment. The constant support of the patriot act. The list goes on. Mainly they violate the 10th amendment.
1
cruelsuit1 Actually conservatives feel that the bill of rights were to protect rights of people and place strict limitations on the federal government. With more state and local governments not only would you have a more equal voice, but a stronger voice as well. The money coming from the Koch Brothers, or anyone in general (for example unions for liberal cases) wouldn't mean anything if there were strict limitations on the federal government like the country was designed. The left has done a lot to tear down those limitations making it easier for federal government to be changed from within and not represent the people.
1
Ronin Dave He did after Sandy Hook, and Obamacare violates the 10th amendment.
1
Ronin Dave I supposed you think the other 8 amendments are add on as well.
1
cruelsuit1 Strict limitations on federal government. State and local governments have more flexibility via the 10th amendment. If a state government were to create such law then fine, how they enforce it is the issue. They can't just enter in people's homes without a warrant, that is unconstitutional.
1
Ronin Dave Do you even know how to "repeal" and amendment?
1
Ronin Dave It took another constitutional amendment to get rid of prohibition. If you want to remove the 10th amendment you have to use a constitutional amendment.
1
Ronin Dave The constitution wasn't supposed to be flexible, change was supposed to be at the local level. Create your own healthcare law that your state or city wants, don't shove it down other throats and conservatives won't shove their down your throats, deal? The founding fathers had foresight knowing there will be future politicians using the government to try to oppress people, that is why they made it hard to change the laws and constitution. The founding fathers would be disappointed at modern day liberals for them violating the 10th amendment. Might as well violate the 4th amendment as well, oh, wait, that happen with the patriot act. Ok, the 1st, it has happen as well with restrictions on cigarette companies on how they advertise. But it is ok, the government will keep you safe and you can live in your little hole with their protection while they are rich.
1
cruelsuit1 It isn't that I support laws, it is that we need to make sure that government actually works for us and creates laws that help the people, not oppress them. That can be done at the local level. When you go from local to state and then state to federal you lose that ability. There are limitations on what governments can do set by the constitution. The constitution guarantees rights to individuals. Seat belt laws are state and local laws. It isn't about me being paranoid but wanting a system of government that represents the people instead of oppressing them.
1
cruelsuit1 I am not destroying the government, I am making it so it supports the people more. I should have a strong voice in that "social contract" you bring up.
1