What's new

XPO | Union Debate and News

nncnwydude said:
The problem we're facing here is that we have an administration, a judicial system, and members of congress acting completely outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Those illegal appointments Obama made while congress was still in session was upheld by a federal court, so they stick. Doesn't change the fact that what he did was illegal and he should be impeached and held responsible for his actions. Congress as a whole has been acting outside the Constitution for years, slowly taking powers not enumerated to it on. The problem is, they change things so slowly, no one notices until it's too late.
Click to expand...
Having one congress person in the building doesn't constitute congress being in secession . I t turned out to be a feeble argument and that is why Obama was victorious . Obama didn't do anything that former presidents didn't do . Reagen had 240 plus recess appointments G .W. Bush had 170 plus Clinton also .Obama had 29 or 30 . So why is alright for former presidents but not Obama ? His appointees might bring some fairness to the labor board rather than stacking it with corporate interests people . Google :G.W. Bush made 170 + appointments .:1036316054:
 
ldgarrit said:
The Federal Govt taxes private sector revenue from all sources, such that when states and counties need money for local projects like schools, roads, and public services, they have to ask the federal government for monetary assistance. The federal government then gives back a portion of what it took, but with conditions. The states have to agree to the conditions or they do not get the money they need. A good example is highway money relatative to seat belt law. There is no federal seatbelt law, but because the states are mostly broke and want to build new roads, they need to come to the fed. If they want to keep those highway funds flowing, the have to have a mandatory seatbelt law in force or the fed cuts them off.....quite frankly, IMO, that Bullshceeet! Wait and see what the fed pulls next regarding highway funds. You think this ban on cell phones is going to stop with CMV's? It won't.


Is any of that un-Constitutional?
Again, there is no federal regulatory agency governing the behavior of individuals driving their personally owned vehicles, but the fed can get people to stop using handsets while driving if they decide to. All they have to do is pass a law that says if any state wants to be eligible to receive all available highway funds due that state, that it must have a law in force banning the use of handheld cell phones in cars by a certain date. Any state failing to pass such a law will recieve reduced or no highway funds. You want another example....."No Child Left Behind"

The federal govt requires that kids meet certain minimum standards in math and science in the public schools. If the states want money for education, they have to comply with these standards or guess what......that's right, they get cut off. See what I'm saying? There are examples of this kind of excessive federal government control all around us and IMO, it's simply unacceptable. The states in large part can govern themselves, the founders knew that, the country knew it, and that's why they wouldn't ratify the new Constitution until the tenth amendment was included in the original bill of rights. Money is power and right now, the federal government has too much of it and we the people have too little. Do you get it now?
Click to expand...

Is any of that un-Constitutional? I was asking "how does the Federal government infringe on the rights of states" in regards to the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
 
nncnwydude said:
The problem we're facing here is that we have an administration, a judicial system, and members of congress acting completely outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Those illegal appointments Obama made while congress was still in session was upheld by a federal court, so they stick. Doesn't change the fact that what he did was illegal and he should be impeached and held responsible for his actions. Congress as a whole has been acting outside the Constitution for years, slowly taking powers not enumerated to it on. The problem is, they change things so slowly, no one notices until it's too late.
Click to expand...

If the courts do not find something un-Constitutional then it is not un-Constitutional. Thats how the system is designed in the Constitution.
 
Everyone is fighting for the chance to take your money. Does it really matter who took it? I don't have it any more either way.

The part about wanting to make O/O employees somehow was a new twist. Hadn't heard about that.
 
radman said:
Is any of that un-Constitutional? I was asking "how does the Federal government infringe on the rights of states" in regards to the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Over the decades, the Federal Govt has grown it's power and influence over the states. I don't know if any of the acts I have described could be interpreted as unconstitutional. But I think it's safe to say that if the Founders were to come back and see how the Federal Government has crept it's way into nearly every part of our lives, that they would be shocked and appalled. They would see this big federal govt of ours as something they never envisioned when they wrote the constitution. So to be exact, not uncontitutional, but the results of what's been created are just as bad.
 
ldgarrit said:
Perhaps, but it doesn't make any of it right.
Click to expand...


Whether or not you think something is right is irrevelant. The Constitution gives the courts and the courts ALONE the power to decide these matters. If you support the Constitution then you must support the courts, right? Or do you only support the parts that you like or that you think is right?

The system works best when nobody is happy in my opinion.Compromise is NOT a dirty word.
 
nncnwydude said:
That is called legislating from the bench. Which is ALSO unconstitutional!
Click to expand...

WRONG. There is no such thing. Only the Congress has the power to legislate. "Legislating from the bench" is code for the "I don't like what the Supreme Court just decided." You don't have the power to decide what is un-Constituional, only the Courts do. Thats in the Constitution you know. Do you want to change that part?
 
ldgarrit said:
Over the decades, the Federal Govt has grown it's power and influence over the states. I don't know if any of the acts I have described could be interpreted as unconstitutional. But I think it's safe to say that if the Founders were to come back and see how the Federal Government has crept it's way into nearly every part of our lives, that they would be shocked and appalled. They would see this big federal govt of ours as something they never envisioned when they wrote the constitution. So to be exact, not uncontitutional, but the results of what's been created are just as bad.
Click to expand...

So if thats the case, lets leave the Constitution out of this arguement, agreed? You think the Federal government is TOO large and should be smaller, so do I. So there we have some common ground. We probably have lots of common ground once all the posturing and argueing about who really loves this country talk is pushed aside.
 
radman said:
So if thats the case, lets leave the Constitution out of this arguement, agreed? You think the Federal government is TOO large and should be smaller, so do I. So there we have some common ground. We probably have lots of common ground once all the posturing and argueing about who really loves this country talk is pushed aside.
Click to expand...

Are you still sore at me when I said that I could not understand how you can love the United States?
 
Pup Driver said:
Having one congress person in the building doesn't constitute congress being in secession . I t turned out to be a feeble argument and that is why Obama was victorious . Obama didn't do anything that former presidents didn't do . Reagen had 240 plus recess appointments G .W. Bush had 170 plus Clinton also .Obama had 29 or 30 . So why is alright for former presidents but not Obama ? His appointees might bring some fairness to the labor board rather than stacking it with corporate interests people . Google :G.W. Bush made 170 + appointments .:1036316054:
Click to expand...

Congress was in session, pro forma or full, it doesn't matter because Congress was in session when Obama circumvented the Constitution and appointed Cordray. This is a check and balance system we have between Congress, President, and Judicial. Do not be mislead to think that the check and balance system is about Dems checking Repubs and vice versa. Congress held a pro forma session for the single purpose to prevent Obama from making this particular recess appointment, it's within their rights to do because it's in the rules that Congress uses to do it's business. It was the only way they could prevent the President from doing something they didn't want. Congress played by the rules and the President didn't. What Obama did was dictorial, imperialistic, and a downright crapping on the Constitution, the very document that he studied in law school. The President has no respect for the Constitution, he sees it as a roadblock to getting his way and he's got all you people who liked Pup Driver's post fooled, along with all the rest of the people who voted for him in 2008. Whether you like the guy or not, take off the blinders and see what this guy is really all about.

Pup Driver, I challenge you or anyone else to find me just one example where Reagan, Clinton, or Bush made recess appointments when Congress was in session. You won't find any. Want to know why? Because they never did it. Obama didn't study the Constitution because he loves his country, quite the opposite. He studied the Constition so he could learn how to systematically destroy it piece by piece.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I don't think you would feel the labor board was fair until every trucking company in this country was union, so I don't have much regard for your opinion on this matter.
 
And Con-way made how much in the last quarter? OMG! bad economy? Yep for the working man....When will you non-union people see the real picture?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top