Europe.
-
kgaddy wrote:
If you believe the state "gave" you rights, then they can certainly take them away.
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from. Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed. Incidentally, no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights, so this blathering on about the state as the alternative to the Creator as a moral source is just misdirection and obfuscation. The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
-
John Carson wrote:
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from.
But they can not do so legitimately if those rights are yours by the mere fact of your existence. If the state is the ultimate authority than any thing it does is legitimate.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Actually, the democrats have caused far more damage over the last few generations to our liberties than Bush has during his tenure. Nothing Bush has done (in terms of his efforts against terrorism) affects me directly in any way. Everything the dems have done has a direct impact upon every aspect of my life.
John Carson wrote:
The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source.
And no Jeffersonian would argue otherwise. But the state is empowered to be so by those it governs. I give permission to Bush, for example, to take those actions necessary to defend the nation from a very real threat even though I know there is some small risk to certain liberties that I enjoy. Once the threat is passed and the enemy defeated, I will reevaluate the situation and act accordingly. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
But they can not do so legitimately if those rights are yours by the mere fact of your existence. If the state is the ultimate authority than any thing it does is legitimate.
To repeat, I don't know of any western secularist who believes that the state is the source of moral authority and hence of moral rights. As a practical matter, your moral rights tend to be of limited effect unless the state will respect/defend them, but the state is not an independent moral source. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you on the Democrats vs Bush question (except that you may be correct in terms of its impact on you personally).
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the state is empowered to be so by those it governs. I give permission to Bush, for example, to take those actions necessary to defend the nation from a very real threat even though I know there is some small risk to certain liberties that I enjoy.
So the legitimacy of the state's actions comes from the consent of the governed, not from the Creator? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
viaduct wrote:
The French will be required to follow EU Laws the same as everyone else.
:confused: Do we not ?
viaduct wrote:
The regular decamp to Strasbourg periodically at great expense will cease.
Yep, let's make it definitely there and forget this with ... how is it named again ? Ah yes, "Bruxelles". Ok I live in Strasbourg, nevermind
viaduct wrote:
The "Euro" currency will be given a not-so-stupid name.
Former name was Ecu :rolleyes: What's wrong with euro, BTW ? ~RaGE();
No, you follow EU Law where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't - remember the British Beef ban when the EU said you had to let it back in? "Euro" doesn't have enough consonants... :-)
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it.
Well most western states are build on the christian religon. It's not bad to have social merits. Nine of the decalogue are universal, even if you don't believe in god. And it isn't so bad when people don't kill and steal. But I agree, that we don't want god based state of any kind, with a religon everybody has to bear. I want to give just an idea, it's not my opinion, but it's a point to look at. Other could say, that they want religion to be instituted in the constitution. So what to say against? You said that every one could live like he wants, but that is not possible at all. Perhaps someone believes that building a religion based state is the only way, so you would prune his rights to live his religion if you don't let him. If you let him, he would prune your rights to live without religion. What todo then? Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, it's just the way you look at. So one's believes will be depressed and consequently his rights. It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights. We don't find a perfect solution for this problem, even if we agree, there will be someone who won't. What if fifty and one percent of all habitants of europe like to have it in the constitution? Greetings, Ingo
ihoecken wrote:
It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights.
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff
You don't appear to have read what I wrote --- at least not with any comprehension. I wrote: no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights This is reading comprehension 101 --- a pre-requisite for gov 101 that you don't seem to possess. The legal source of human rights is another matter. The state is the legal source of human rights because the government makes and enforces the laws. If the law says all left-handed people should be put to death, then left-handed people have no legal right to life. Governments put people to death all the time, sometimes by the millions, in accordance with laws they have written. Perhaps you have noticed. This is history 101.
kgaddy wrote:
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one.
Bush has taken away the right not be be imprisoned without charge, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, and various rights to freedom of movement, privacy etc. To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue. No-fly lists are one example. Warrantless phone interception is another. You can find others here: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
ihoecken wrote:
It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights.
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is.
Yes of course. You are a little bit ingenuous. This is the problem the mankind suffers from since thousand of years. If you got all the rights you want, somebody won't get his rights he want. There are thousand of examples I could give you. The Example we talk about: Person A wants the right to have a christian state, Person B wants the right to have state where religion is not in the constitution. Only one of them can get his rights and the other won't like it. And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do? Oh by the way I didn't said your an authoritarian, I just pointed out, that there are different viewpoints. Nothing more, nothing less. Greetings, Ingo -- modified at 5:44 Tuesday 31st January, 2006
-
John Carson wrote:
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is.
Yes of course. You are a little bit ingenuous. This is the problem the mankind suffers from since thousand of years. If you got all the rights you want, somebody won't get his rights he want. There are thousand of examples I could give you. The Example we talk about: Person A wants the right to have a christian state, Person B wants the right to have state where religion is not in the constitution. Only one of them can get his rights and the other won't like it. And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do? Oh by the way I didn't said your an authoritarian, I just pointed out, that there are different viewpoints. Nothing more, nothing less. Greetings, Ingo -- modified at 5:44 Tuesday 31st January, 2006
I am not disputing that the rights that people assert may be in conflict. I was disputing your extreme assertion that giving one person all the rights (s)he wanted would leave no rights to anyone else.
ihoecken wrote:
And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do?
You can try appealing to the Golden Rule: http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html[^] If people want to dictate my religious beliefs/observances, how would they feel if I tried to dictate their religious beliefs/observances? To the extent that people cannot establish some sort of consensus on a live-and-let-live set of laws and social arrangements, you are obviously going to get conflict. Some views/beliefs just are in conflict. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
I am not disputing that the rights that people assert may be in conflict. I was disputing your extreme assertion that giving one person all the rights (s)he wanted would leave no rights to anyone else.
ihoecken wrote:
And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do?
You can try appealing to the Golden Rule: http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html[^] If people want to dictate my religious beliefs/observances, how would they feel if I tried to dictate their religious beliefs/observances? To the extent that people cannot establish some sort of consensus on a live-and-let-live set of laws and social arrangements, you are obviously going to get conflict. Some views/beliefs just are in conflict. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
I totally agree to you. But even if we agree, there will be others who don't it's just a question: If fiftyone percent of the habitents want to have a religious state, must we build one? Who is telling what is right and what is wrong. The teaching values (I didn't read them yet, but my wife is teacher and I'm sure I heard of them) may be fine. But someone has developed them on her or his opinion. They could be wrong in other words. Who tell us, that we are right if we claim so called human rights? They have been developed, their axioms and if you chance the base so you have other. I understand it, when you don't want a religous state, but I say, that I understand it too, if someone says, to have christian merits in the constitution can't be wrong... Greetings, Ingo
-
I totally agree to you. But even if we agree, there will be others who don't it's just a question: If fiftyone percent of the habitents want to have a religious state, must we build one? Who is telling what is right and what is wrong. The teaching values (I didn't read them yet, but my wife is teacher and I'm sure I heard of them) may be fine. But someone has developed them on her or his opinion. They could be wrong in other words. Who tell us, that we are right if we claim so called human rights? They have been developed, their axioms and if you chance the base so you have other. I understand it, when you don't want a religous state, but I say, that I understand it too, if someone says, to have christian merits in the constitution can't be wrong... Greetings, Ingo
ihoecken wrote:
I totally agree to you. But even if we agree, there will be others who don't it's just a question: If fiftyone percent of the habitents want to have a religious state, must we build one?
When civil liberties and democracy are in conflict, it is a question of which you value most. Personally, I value civil liberties. Accordingly, I would be in favour of civil disobedience in the face of a religious state (since this is partly a strategic issue, it would be more correct to say that I think civil disobedience is ethically justifiable and may or may not be strategically advisable, depending on circumstances).
ihoecken wrote:
Who tell us, that we are right if we claim so called human rights? They have been developed, their axioms and if you chance the base so you have other.
I think you are seeking an answer that just doesn't exist. When people disagree, there is a potential for conflict and there is no magic formula for resolving the disagreements. At one extreme, discussions about the disagreements could lead to a compromise solution. At the other extreme, the disagreements could lead to war. That is the nature of human existence. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
kgaddy wrote:
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff
You don't appear to have read what I wrote --- at least not with any comprehension. I wrote: no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights This is reading comprehension 101 --- a pre-requisite for gov 101 that you don't seem to possess. The legal source of human rights is another matter. The state is the legal source of human rights because the government makes and enforces the laws. If the law says all left-handed people should be put to death, then left-handed people have no legal right to life. Governments put people to death all the time, sometimes by the millions, in accordance with laws they have written. Perhaps you have noticed. This is history 101.
kgaddy wrote:
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one.
Bush has taken away the right not be be imprisoned without charge, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, and various rights to freedom of movement, privacy etc. To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue. No-fly lists are one example. Warrantless phone interception is another. You can find others here: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
No, it's you that does not get it. If the people realize that the rights do not come from the state, then they do not have THE LEGAL right to take it away. Of course they can try, then you can have a revolution. The fear of revolution is one of the deterrents for this. As long as THE STATE understands it does not have the LEGAL right to take away anything it cannot give then we are safe. Of course this works best in a democracy.
John Carson wrote:
Bush has taken away the right not be be imprisoned without charge, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, and various rights to freedom of movement, privacy etc. To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue. No-fly lists are one example. Warrantless phone interception is another. You can find others here:
Thats what I thought. Where has he taken the right of a US citizen to a speedy trial??? A fair trial??? Right not to be tortured? where is that right? And the best one......"and various rights to freedom of movement". Translation: I don't really know. "To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue." No, it is the issue. US citizens are the only one's covered by the US constution. Even Clinton understood that. I have never heard anyone think we have a right to fly. You cannot name one person who has had their rights as a US citizen taken away. And you personal attacts just show you lost the argument. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
-
No, it's you that does not get it. If the people realize that the rights do not come from the state, then they do not have THE LEGAL right to take it away. Of course they can try, then you can have a revolution. The fear of revolution is one of the deterrents for this. As long as THE STATE understands it does not have the LEGAL right to take away anything it cannot give then we are safe. Of course this works best in a democracy.
John Carson wrote:
Bush has taken away the right not be be imprisoned without charge, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, and various rights to freedom of movement, privacy etc. To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue. No-fly lists are one example. Warrantless phone interception is another. You can find others here:
Thats what I thought. Where has he taken the right of a US citizen to a speedy trial??? A fair trial??? Right not to be tortured? where is that right? And the best one......"and various rights to freedom of movement". Translation: I don't really know. "To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue." No, it is the issue. US citizens are the only one's covered by the US constution. Even Clinton understood that. I have never heard anyone think we have a right to fly. You cannot name one person who has had their rights as a US citizen taken away. And you personal attacts just show you lost the argument. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
No, it's you that does not get it. If the people realize that the rights do not come from the state, then they do not have THE LEGAL right to take it away. Of course they can try, then you can have a revolution. The fear of revolution is one of the deterrents for this. As long as THE STATE understands it does not have the LEGAL right to take away anything it cannot give then we are safe. Of course this works best in a democracy.
This is just gibberish. If the Constitution of country X gives the government legal authority to do Y, then the government has the legal right to do Y regardless of how it conflicts with any rights you think the Creator may have endowed the people with and regardless of what the people do or do not realise about those Creator-given rights. If a revolution is required to stop the government so acting, then that involves overthrowing the existing law --- an illegal act in the first instance --- it does not involve exercising existing legal rights.
kgaddy wrote:
Thats what I thought. Where has he taken the right of a US citizen to a speedy trial??? A fair trial??? Right not to be tortured? where is that right? And the best one......"and various rights to freedom of movement". Translation: I don't really know.
You apparently interpreted my earlier remark about "your rights" as a reference to the rights of kgaddy, US citizen. It was in fact intended as a generic reference to the rights of anyone (I won't suggest that an exaggerated sense of self-importance on your part underlay this misunderstanding, though others might). Likewise the reference in the next sentence to Bush taking away rights was intended to refer to anyone affected by the Bush Administration's policies. The rights that Bush took away were moral rights, deriving from whatever source of morality one recognises. I realise, of course, that not everyone agrees on what is on the list of moral rights. I simply assert that the rights quoted (right not to be tortured etc.) are on my list. These particular rights may or may not have had explicit legislative support and may or may not exist in various conventions, but were at least granted de facto by previous government policy. The Bush Administration removed them by legislation and administrative policy.
kgaddy wrote:
I have never heard anyone think we have a right to fly. You cannot name
-
kgaddy wrote:
No, it's you that does not get it. If the people realize that the rights do not come from the state, then they do not have THE LEGAL right to take it away. Of course they can try, then you can have a revolution. The fear of revolution is one of the deterrents for this. As long as THE STATE understands it does not have the LEGAL right to take away anything it cannot give then we are safe. Of course this works best in a democracy.
This is just gibberish. If the Constitution of country X gives the government legal authority to do Y, then the government has the legal right to do Y regardless of how it conflicts with any rights you think the Creator may have endowed the people with and regardless of what the people do or do not realise about those Creator-given rights. If a revolution is required to stop the government so acting, then that involves overthrowing the existing law --- an illegal act in the first instance --- it does not involve exercising existing legal rights.
kgaddy wrote:
Thats what I thought. Where has he taken the right of a US citizen to a speedy trial??? A fair trial??? Right not to be tortured? where is that right? And the best one......"and various rights to freedom of movement". Translation: I don't really know.
You apparently interpreted my earlier remark about "your rights" as a reference to the rights of kgaddy, US citizen. It was in fact intended as a generic reference to the rights of anyone (I won't suggest that an exaggerated sense of self-importance on your part underlay this misunderstanding, though others might). Likewise the reference in the next sentence to Bush taking away rights was intended to refer to anyone affected by the Bush Administration's policies. The rights that Bush took away were moral rights, deriving from whatever source of morality one recognises. I realise, of course, that not everyone agrees on what is on the list of moral rights. I simply assert that the rights quoted (right not to be tortured etc.) are on my list. These particular rights may or may not have had explicit legislative support and may or may not exist in various conventions, but were at least granted de facto by previous government policy. The Bush Administration removed them by legislation and administrative policy.
kgaddy wrote:
I have never heard anyone think we have a right to fly. You cannot name
John Carson wrote:
If the Constitution of country X gives the government legal authority to do Y
I guess you have not read the constution, but since you want to play an authority on one. You might want to read it. No constution of the US does not give the goverment any powers, in fact the whole document tells the goverment what it cannot do. This is the single point you are having a hard time grasping. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
-
John Carson wrote:
If the Constitution of country X gives the government legal authority to do Y
I guess you have not read the constution, but since you want to play an authority on one. You might want to read it. No constution of the US does not give the goverment any powers, in fact the whole document tells the goverment what it cannot do. This is the single point you are having a hard time grasping. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
I guess you have not read the constution, but since you want to play an authority on one. You might want to read it. No constution of the US does not give the goverment any powers, in fact the whole document tells the goverment what it cannot do. This is the single point you are having a hard time grasping.
Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head again. I said country X. You read that as the United States. You really are a living caricature of US insularity. There are other countries in the world that have constitutions and these constitutions do give the government powers. You are also a caricature of an ignorant US citizen. The US Constitution does give the government powers. Article I, Section 8 is titled "Powers of Congress" and contains a long list of Congressional powers. Article II describes the Executive's powers (the Presidential veto power over legislation is in Article I, section 7). Article III gives the Judicial powers. I am just staggered that you could be so poorly educated about the Constitution of your own country. I suggest you take your own advice and read the Constitution, which you can find here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[^] You will also need to do a lot of other reading if much progress is to be made in stemming the river of ignorance that flows from your computer. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
kgaddy wrote:
I guess you have not read the constution, but since you want to play an authority on one. You might want to read it. No constution of the US does not give the goverment any powers, in fact the whole document tells the goverment what it cannot do. This is the single point you are having a hard time grasping.
Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head again. I said country X. You read that as the United States. You really are a living caricature of US insularity. There are other countries in the world that have constitutions and these constitutions do give the government powers. You are also a caricature of an ignorant US citizen. The US Constitution does give the government powers. Article I, Section 8 is titled "Powers of Congress" and contains a long list of Congressional powers. Article II describes the Executive's powers (the Presidential veto power over legislation is in Article I, section 7). Article III gives the Judicial powers. I am just staggered that you could be so poorly educated about the Constitution of your own country. I suggest you take your own advice and read the Constitution, which you can find here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[^] You will also need to do a lot of other reading if much progress is to be made in stemming the river of ignorance that flows from your computer. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head again. I said country X. You read that as the United States. You really are a living caricature of US insularity.
No, I was talking about the US and you tried to move it out of the US. nice try. Geez john, You reading of the rules from one entity of the goverment to another as a power is kinda funny. The powers of congrss are the powers WITHIN the goverment. The constution is made up of rules for the goverment. The Ammendments in the constution are where THE RIGHTS are described. check it out. Again, you silly insults do nothing for your argument. How old are you? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
-
John Carson wrote:
Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head again. I said country X. You read that as the United States. You really are a living caricature of US insularity.
No, I was talking about the US and you tried to move it out of the US. nice try. Geez john, You reading of the rules from one entity of the goverment to another as a power is kinda funny. The powers of congrss are the powers WITHIN the goverment. The constution is made up of rules for the goverment. The Ammendments in the constution are where THE RIGHTS are described. check it out. Again, you silly insults do nothing for your argument. How old are you? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
No, I was talking about the US and you tried to move it out of the US. nice try.
I really think you do need a remedial reading course as well as a remedial logic course. When a person refers to country X and you respond to that, you don't get to decide what country X refers to. If you wish to make a US-specific point, you are quite entitled to, but replying to a generic argument with a US-specific one is illogical. You seem not to understand the principles of a dialogue. The origin of this thread was a discussion about a constitution for Europe. That, in your mind, it apparently got to be one exclusively about the US Constitution reveals plenty about your mindset.
kgaddy wrote:
You reading of the rules from one entity of the goverment to another as a power is kinda funny. The powers of congrss are the powers WITHIN the goverment.
The powers are powers to make laws and decisions that affect US citizens and others who come within US jurisdiction, e.g., there are laws obliging the payment of taxation and laws under which people can be punished for spying against the US. These laws are passed under the powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution. In what sense it is "kinda funny" to regard the power permitting the passing of such laws "as a power" and in what sense the ability to pass laws governing the behaviour of people outside the government is merely "powers WITHIN the government", I cannot begin to imagine. You are making no sense at all.
kgaddy wrote:
Again, you silly insults do nothing for your argument.
When a person is ignorant and illogical, as you are, it is not practical to carry on a discussion based on the false premise that it is not so. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine