Currency strength economics.

If you want to argue that liberals need to start using the amendment power to expand that scope of the government that's an acceptable way to move forward.

Besides, I'm sure that you are okay with certain actions which violate this principle. The Louisiana Purchase for example was completely unconstitutional, but it would have been insane not to take the deal. Federal border control and immigration control aren't anywhere in the Constitution, are you an open borders type?

Okay hold on then, if you lives in 1920s Germany what would you have proposed to deal with the Nazis? Suspension of the freedom of speech?

Nazi Germany is a great example of a country that lost the ability to compromise and threw itself onto a pole. Everybody was too busy moralizing and fearmongering to solve the problems that they all recognized as problems.

 

what is "that scope of govt"??? Why would I argue that liberals need to expand govt???? Care to try again?

 

wrong of course purchasing property from France at 1% of cost may not have been contemplated in the Constitution but that did not mean it was unconstitutional.

 

wrong of course. President is Commander in Chief charged with defending county. Next.

 

sure since it was unconstitutional speech, failing that I would have monitored them closely and arrested any who took Nazi actions, failing that certainly would have not have allowed them to participate in political process or hold office.

 

totally absurd or insane!! In times of stress humankind has always followed great liberal nazi govt leaders. This is why our genius Founders tried to prevent that exact thing with our Republican Constitution.

 

That's not what I said. I said that it's sensible to argue that if leftists want to give the government more functions they must use the amendment power granted to our legislature in the Constitution.

I'm all aboard for that. That power exists for a reason.

It was famously un-Constitutional.

Here's what Jefferson wrote about it in a letter: "This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have important functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying & paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving & confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution."

He argues that he and the Congress must commit this unconstitutional act and throw themselves at the mercy of the people for doing so.

The people were perfectly happy with it, it was truly a splendid deal.

Here's Thomas Jefferson again: "Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens."

In other words, questions of residency lie in the hands of the States, not the Federal government.

They aren't under our constitution, and what about it was "unconstitutional speech?" And how would you prohibit citizens from participating in the political process or holding office constitutionally?

 

The more your money goes down, the less the opportunity cost of past debt is as well, so it still is only a small part of a big picture.

 

If I said anything about the amendment process I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?

 

He didn't say the purchase was unconstitutional he said it was "behind the constitution quote. You are making things up as if it isn't obvious

 

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1]

 

Nazi speech is treasonous speech so Nazis could be arrested certainly they could be prohibited from participating in the political process because holding office would be Treasonous. They would have to lie when they took the oath of office and that would also be unconstitutional as well as treasonous

 

You didn't have to. I pointed out that leftists do, indeed, not interpret the Constitution in a way that I find healthy, and that they should be using the Amendment process to push their agenda through.

That way, they can be constitutional and leftist.

"Beyond." How do you interpret "beyond" the Constitution? What do you think he's talking about?

"But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving & confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union."

C'mon brotha, you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying.

Naturalization refers to citizenship, not residency.

I don't think that Nazism is necessarily unconstitutional. They could simply state honestly that they want to amend the Constitution to better suit their vision of a powerful United States.

 

Communists would do exactly that if they had enough support but it would be hard to get enough support for a Constitutional amendment that undermined the Constitution. The conservative geniuses who wrote the Constitution didn't want it to happen!

 

a Nazi can't hold office in theory because to hold office you have to pledge allegiance to the Constitution. If they tried to use politicians already in office those politicians could in theory be removed once their Nazi objectives became clear.