IOW, you cannot support your claims which have been demonstrated to be deficient.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest" -- Alexander Dumas, author of "The Count of Monte Cristo."
At 08:47 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:
MJ: When a 'child', or someone with less sophistication, keeps
questioning authority by asking, "why?", sometimes the best reply is:
"Because I say so!" You are definitely someone of low
sophistication. So... "Because I say so, kid!" — J. A. A. —
>
On May 26, 1:35 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You can spew all the fallacious matter you choose, but it remains that you are (hopelessly) confused.
> Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body deems Members with certain affiliations to have certain positions/duties, then such is within its purview.
> The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_
> At 11:19 AM 5/26/2011, you wrote:Dear Pigeon-Dung-for-a-Brain, MJ: The SPIRIT of the Constitution
> champions FAIRNESS and equality of the power of INDIVIDUALS to control
> government. The (they were only human) Founding Fathers knew that
> there were rules needing to be made and laws passed to make this
> country function. But those naive Founding Fathers had no idea that
> by giving Congress the 'power' to make its own rules, without any
> controls over what those rules can be, that Congress would so willing
> depart from the sacred SPIRIT of the Constitution that is: "Fair play
> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Having... "rules"
> that give the power to 'the winning party', and not allocating power
> to individuals equally, is a SUBVERSION of our sacred Representative
> (parity) Republic! There is NO ASPECT OF THE MANDATED STRUCTURE OF
> OUR GOVERNMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE
> CONTROL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!!!
> Congress, nor the President have the power to vote to take power away
> from the People. And Congress, nor the President have the authority
> to do a God-damned THING that is socialist-communist or unfair!!! My
> New Constitution stipulates that no "rule" of Congress can concentrate
> power in the hands of any individual or group beyond one-person-one-
> vote. Political parties, because they are unfair and use leverage NOT
> granted by the Constitution are, and always have been
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You would be well advised NOT to question anything
> I have done on behalf of the American People, because there is not a
> Patriot on Earth with my intellect and my devotion to SAVING this
> country!!! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
> >
> On May 25, 9:49 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power
> > structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning
> > party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue
> > voted upon. You are (hopelessly) confused.
> > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body deems Members with certain affiliations to have certain positions/duties, then such is within its purview.
> > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. This does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the advantage providing laws unconstitutional.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment