J’Biden to spend $36 BILLION to bail out union pensions

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T14:48:43.613Z

And our federal Legislators, Executive and Judicial officials are all commanded by our Constitution to support and defend "this Constitution, and not one they believe ought to be the rule of law.

JWK

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T15:00:58.319Z

Isn’t it amazing how, after over a century, progressives on the Court suddenly discovered that the Framers on down had been wrong?

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T15:05:58.000Z

The only exception I take with your post is, they are not “progressives”. They are domestic enemies, and authoritarian revolutionaries.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T15:27:41.468Z

If they had called themselves French Republic Style Arbitrary Government Wannabes they would have been honest … and not won elections.

Publius · 2022-12-12T16:57:57.737Z

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-12T17:11:08.407Z

You are the one suggesting our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure.

The fact is, our federal Constitution nowhere proclaims “The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.” As a matter of fact our federal Constitution is crystal clear in that it’s the Presidents duty to support and defend “this Constitution” and not laws which subjugate it.

And specifically, the President is commanded to

take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So, my friend, what wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Rurudyne · 2022-12-12T18:28:29.320Z

The lawless Court and the federal is in abeyance. The financial doom that lawlessness is leading to is unavoidable.

Hopefully the progressives will suffer worse than the rest of us, because they actually deserve it.

RTchoke · 2022-12-12T18:49:00.203Z

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Publius · 2022-12-12T21:14:02.995Z

RTchoke:

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Please try to focus.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T01:59:15.547Z

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

RTchoke · 2022-12-13T02:19:29.574Z

Publius:

RTchoke:

Publius:

Rurudyne:

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Please try to focus.

I am. I am focusing on YOUR bar that doesn’t seem to apply to your own kind.

Publius · 2022-12-13T04:27:24.022Z

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Rurudyne · 2022-12-13T06:15:38.558Z

You do realize that appeals to authority are a kind of fallacy, especially when the authority itself is being questioned, right?

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T06:21:38.837Z

Publius:

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

Publius · 2022-12-13T06:29:37.618Z

johnwk2:

Publius:

johnwk2:

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

I don’t pretend to be a Constitutional scholar like some here. But I do know Congress authorizes all expenditures, and that the President is responsible for executing those expenditures under law. I also know that we have a whole system of courts where people who disagree with such expenditures can have their cases or controversies adjudicated.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T06:36:54.724Z

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

Publius · 2022-12-13T06:46:53.555Z

johnwk2:

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

I have people for that. They’re called the courts.

Your micturating into the wind here is sad and ineffectual.

johnwk2 · 2022-12-13T06:56:44.031Z

No. You are avoiding identifying the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

Supreme_War_Pig · 2022-12-13T06:57:34.519Z

Publius:

johnwk2:

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

I have people for that. They’re called the courts.

Your micturating into the wind here is sad and ineffectual.

Today I learned…

Publius · 2022-12-13T06:59:52.544Z

What, you haven’t seen The Big Lebowski?