Constitutional crap is so lame...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Aug 23, 2013.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    I am on a FB discussion about requiring those on welfare being required to take a drug test.

    It was than stated if you make them, then make gun owners take a test.

    I replied - then you would also think that a person applying for a drivers license should have to take a drug test.

    Here is her response: "The deal is.. I can take a drug test for any reason if i have to.. why? Because i don't use drugs.. What is the reason gun owners can't do the same? the constitutional crap is so lame..."

    Why waste my time in replying? And we wonder how liberals think.....
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Yea that pesky old Constitution always gets in the way of the liberal agenda.
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Doesn't make it any easier for conservatives either apparently Rev. think of how upset republicans would be if we actually had to follow the constitution and have congress declare war every time we wanted to change another nation"s regime around to suit our corporate interests.

    Shucks we might never have any wars. What a bummer for a peace loving nation such as ours eh?
     
    #3 poncho, Aug 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2013
  4. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not in the Constitution Poncho. And it has never been the practice of U.S. Presidents. Just read the Constitution for yourself instead of swallowing every crack-pot Libertarian assumption ever foisted. Here's the entire text of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    One thing that IS Constitutuional, incidentally, might be for Congress to grant you a letter of Marque promising legal protection say, if you wanted to purchase a private destroyer and sink Iranian vessels at will in the Persian Gulf. That, incidentally, is Constitutional...but this Congres MUST "declare War" Zeitgeist is not true and never was.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    If poncho said something about declaring war - without the authority of congress-.....

    than that IS ONE reason Ponch is on my ignore list - as that has absoutely nothing to do with the OP.

    He probally said something about how great Ron Paul is too. Actually, I could care less what Paul's platform on the OP is.....

    AND NOW BACK TO THE OP......
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Salty, my guess is that if it was declared legal to have food stamp recipants undergo a drug test then it would also be legal to force gun owner to undergo a drug test or just about anyone for any reason somebody dreams up.

    I do not think either will stand up in the courts as such testing would be declared illegal search and seizure. Rights cuts both ways. It protects those folk who have or are doing something we approve of, but it also often protects folks who are not popular with many in the populace.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I disagree CTB. The Fourth Amendment has been annulled by fiat from Presidents Bush and Obama. US citizens have no protection from illegal search and seizure. The 'constitutional c**p' is no longer in the way.
     
    #7 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 26, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2013
  8. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the key difference, the "Constitutional C**P" that the first post is talking about is the second amendment. Gun owners are specifically protected by the constitution, food stamp recipients are not.

    Illegal search and seizure might apply if the drug tests for government benefits were then used as evidence for criminal prosecution, but if the only result was denial of benefits then I don't see the constitution applying in the case of a drug test for food stamps or any other benefit not constitutionally protected.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Fully agree
     
  10. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's look at the facts, shall we?

    Bush: Permission sought from Congress and granted by Congress for interventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Clinton: Bombed Serbia without Congressional approval.

    Great Pretender: Assisted with both e-lint and human intel (i.e., on the ground) in Libya, without Congressional approval.

    Conservative Republicans following the Constitution: 2
    Liberal Democrats following the Constitution: 0

    NEXT!
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What actually happened doesn't line up with your "facts" at all. You seem to be confusing "republican" talking points with facts again, Bill. Congress under extreme duress abdicated it's authority and oversight to give Bush a blank check to wage a phoney "war on terror" under false pretenses.

    Right he ignored congress, broke international law and started dropping bombs on another nation under false pretenses.

    Yep but before that the State Dept with it's army of corporate sponsored NGOs engineered what the western media called a "popular uprising". So what the "protesters"and "activists" turned out to be Al Qaeda?.

    My count comes out a little different than your's. I come up with international bankers and corporations 4 the American people 0.

    What's next? Well, it's looking like we're going to go to war (with Russia and China) to hand another nation over to Al Qaeda.
     
    #11 poncho, Aug 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2013
  12. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    I had the same conversation with somebody once. Essentially, their argument was that it is Unconstitutional to demand that welfare recipients pass a drug test but, oddly enough, she had no problem with the fact that welfare programs are never listed among the enumerated powers of the government.
     
  13. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh ... no. Your "differences" bear no relation to the facts.

    Uh ... no. Yes, he did ignore Congress. No, it was not under false pretenses. Fact: The Serbs were murdering their own people, so Clinton took action. His debacle was failing to consider asking Congress, though they probably would have nearly unanimously approved the air campaign.

    Uh ... no. It was a popular uprising, al-Qaeda was not present in Libya at the beginning of the civil war, but only showed up on the scene much later and woefully out of touch with the Libyan people, who essentially rejected their efforts and kept newly forged ties with Europe and the U.S. intact. Even so, that didn't excuse the Great Pretender from ignoring Constitutional protocol.

     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    It would seem you are a little confused. Talking points aren't the same as facts.

    Well that was the story at the time but the facts have since put that fairy tale to bed. You'd know that if you spent more time reading the facts instead of memorizing talking points. Just sayin.

    No actually the facts have come out on that after you got your talking points down pat. Probly why you missed them.

    Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq predominately came from Libya that fact comes from a major West Point study, Qaddafi was doing a pretty good job of whipping them until the State Dept and it's corporate sponsored NGOs stepped in and started "preparing" the "activists" aka Islamic extremists. In the meantime western media was crowing about what a great fighting force our Al Qaeda ally is.

    I don't understand how you can keep avoiding so many facts. They've all been in the MSM press. I know because I posted a whole bunch of em here on BB.

    Well you are partly right it wouldn't be a war it would be another act of aggression and crime against humanity by Washington, London, France and their Al Qaeda allies and paid Qatari mercenaries in and around Syria. Besides it wouldn't be a new "war" as Washington and it's coalition of criminally insane European and Middle eastern "allies" have been waging war on Syria for two years and nine months now. That's how long I have been reporting on it here least ways.

    Bet Faux Snews and Bill O haven't seen fit to inform you about the friction between Qatar and the Sauds. One word . . .

    Nabucco
     
    #14 poncho, Aug 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...