Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[DaShi]

All I know is that I'm never going to Arizona. Since I'm not a "citizen" of that state, I could be arrested for trespassing and possibly be deported back to Connecticut!

[zakubandit]

You guys telling me I am disregarding the Constitution is comedic to me. For the past 50 years the federal government has usurped power, now it is to the point that states are being held hostage by the federal government. South Carolina was forced to accept the $700mil bailout plan by Obama. Sanford didn't want it. The government has no right, by word of the Constitution you are say you know so much about, to meddle in company affairs in the position of telling a CEO to step down, controlling through surrogates, or telling companies how they will conduct business outside of lawful restriction. Feds are getting their hands in auto industry, health care, insurance, and housing. That is not allowed by the Constitution, oh but wait I am sure you will find a way to obscure the wording I have read to state it in your own ways. To make it right that the government is going to be controlling the business world. Good job, I am glad you guys *those of you that are* call yourselves Americans. You sheeple are ridiculous, allowing your rights and the reason America began to be stripped away piece by piece. What the **** is wrong with all of you. Defend criminals, support the usurpation of power...you guys must be in Congress or something.

[DaShi]

Please cite where the constitution forbids that ****.

[Arrian]

South Carolina was forced to accept the $700mil bailout plan by Obama

I was under the impression that SC's state legislature was responsible for that.

The government has no right, by word of the Constitution you are say you know so much about, to meddle in company affairs in the position of telling a CEO to step down, controlling through surrogates, or telling companies how they will conduct business

If the company wants the government's money they will do what they're ****ing told. If they don't like that, they shouldn't go begging to Uncle Sammy. I'm not a big fan of the bailouts either (though I reluctantly concluded that the bank bailout was necessary), but this rant is gobbledigook.

Feds are getting their hands in auto industry, health care, insurance, and housing. That is not allowed by the Constitution

What?

You sheeple are ridiculous, allowing your rights and the reason America began to be stripped away piece by piece. What the **** is wrong with all of you. Defend criminals, support the usurpation of power...

My rights? The funny thing is that the damage done to our rights is something you've been silent about: the Obama administration's adoption of Bush administration legal theories on secrecy, executive privilege, detention, etc. That's truely worrisome, and relatively new.

The illegal immigration situation has been what it is for decades now. It's not the fault of "berry" nor was it the fault of Dubya (in fact, he took a shot at improving the situation, and was IIRC stopped by his own party). And AZ's attempted solution is flatly unconstitutional, sorry. You will have to convince the Federal government to do what you want, or seceed. Or maybe just rant and rave a bit until you feel better.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Apparently, Zaku thinks the US Constitution states that the US must run a laissez-faire capitalist economic system.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Well at least not nationalize whole sectors of the economy at the drop of the hat or seek to overturn bankruptcy law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think Zaku is the best "say no to drugs" message I've ever seen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well at least not nationalize whole sectors of the economy at the drop of the hat or seek to overturn bankruptcy law.

OTOH, neither is really unconstitutional. As long as just compensation is paid for nationalization of sectors of the economy (or those sectors ask for said nationalization, in which case just compensation is assumed, I'd imagine) and bankruptcy law being a federal law which the federal government can change at a whim, they can fit.

The Constitution is extremely flexible in that way.

[Lorizael]

Goddammit, I can't take it anymore.

Zakubandit, as Off Topic Moderator, I officially demand that you explain how you can interpret Article I, Section 8 in a way that does not grant Congress the power to legislate citizenship. I also officially demand that you explain how you can interpret Article VI of the Constitution in a way that does not mean laws passed by Congress are the supreme law of the land.

You must respond to the specific passages of the Constitution which are being cited here, and you cannot ramble on about illegal aliens or how the Fed is usurping your power. You have repeatedly been asked simple questions regarding the Constitution, and you seem incapable of answering those questions.

If you cannot answer these questions, I will again use my official Off Topic Moderator powers to declare that you have lost the debate. And just so you know, Apolyton's Constitution grants me these powers, and others, and you don't want me to exercise them on you.

For your perusal, again, the relevant passages from the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

[Arrian]

OTOH, neither is really unconstitutional

Indeed, a thing can be both ok by the constitution and a terrible idea.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

[...]

Don't fall for his trap! Judgment Day is upon us. Arm yourselves! Death to the machines!!!!

[Arrian]

Remember, private gun ownership will save us!

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Unless the machines have cleverly implanted microchips in the guns. Otherwise why would zakubot be advocating gun ownership?

Throw out your guns! We'll fight them with rocks!

[Arrian]

Sheep can't throw rocks.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

and bankruptcy law being a federal law which the federal government can change at a whim, they can fit.

Typically that requires an act of Congress rather than executive fiat, no?