This just in from Heckovajob Brownie: Help for Sandy came too fast

[hobbsyoyo]

Texas v White and Wickard v Filburn proved that the Supreme Court surely doesn't do its job very well.

Just good enough that we're the #1 country on Earth.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just good enough that we're the #1 country on Earth.

That may apply to Texas v White but has nothing to do with Wickard v Filburn.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Askthepizzaguy- I'm well aware of how things work practically speaking, that doesn't make them constitutional just because nobody has dared challenge them.

Things are unconstitutional when the Supreme Court decides that they are, not when Ron Paul or GhostWriter16 says they are.

When you begin speaking as if you understand this, I may decide to read your posts on this or any other topic again. It just becomes beyond annoying to have you challenge everything that everyone does as unconstitutional as if it were a fact in every single discussion on every thread everywhere.

You're not just impractical, you're out of touch. The argument that anything political opponent A does is "unconstitutional" is little more than a buzzword. It's an empty argument.

You continue to use this empty argument like a one-trick libertarian pony. Not only is it NOT unconstitutional, but you've put forth no reason why the government shouldn't have an organization like FEMA.

Let's say there actually was a rule against it. Why wouldn't we overturn such an absurd rule?

Grunting and mumbling something about states powers is meaningless when the states in question are throwing themselves at the Fed to please, please, please help them.

It undermines your entire point. If it were up to the states, the states would do the following:

1. Create a foundational legal document detailing how there should be a national system of government
2. Levy taxes for this hypothetical government
3. Have that federal government create an agency responsible for disaster relief, so that when a disaster strikes that a state cannot handle alone, there's something more powerful capable of stepping in.

And funnily enough, that's what they've done. And it's constitutional. And this is what they and every sane person wants.

Nobody wants a free market solution where disaster relief goes to the highest bidder.
Nobody wants New Jersey alone to be responsible for disaster relief to New Jersey. Not even the governor of New freaking Jersey.

This is how badly they want FEMA: the governor of New Jersey, the top pick by Romney for his own running mate, who politely declined but strongly endorsed him, is pouring out genuine emotion and statements of facts due to the competence Barack Obama has shown and is thankful for the existence of FEMA to help his state. In an election year. In an election month. They're on opposing parties.

This is why your points have no teeth. Not only are they not unconstitutional, but if they were, the states would do everything in their power to make it constitutional.

Try to find someone outside of a fanboi who worships at the teats of Ron Paul who thinks FEMA should be shut down and have New Jersey fend for itself right now.

Just, just try. The reason why you won't find anyone like that is because you'd have to be ideologically rigid enough to ignore the overwhelming demands of the situation to create a vague principle like "something something states rights something something" to shut down an agency responsible for responding to national emergencies that is currently receiving massive bipartisan support (of the kind of bipartisan not seen in the united states since 9/11/01).

The brain disconnect between what is good for the country and what the religion of Paulism states is the reason why there will never be a capital L Libertarian president.


_____________________


I see on preview that Mayor Rudolph 9/11 9/11 "I literally had sex with 9/11" 9/11 Giuliani is fast at work repairing the damage Christie did to rampant partisanship in the wake of Sandy.

I think maybe because there’s an election going on, people don’t want to say that

PLEASE.

People want to say the President is a socialist Kenyan Muslim terrorist fist bumper who secretly wants to destroy America. They want to say it, and they do.

The reason why people don't want to say FEMA is doing a lousy job is because FEMA is saving lives and restoring a disaster-ravaged land back to livable conditions, and doing a good job at it. That's why Christie shut up with the partisanship and said both the President and FEMA did a stellar job.

It's not because people are afraid to say partisan things, you dip.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@ATPG-

The states would do everything in their power to make it constitutitional

In this case I agree with you that they should do so. Its not a bad organization. I even said such, that I didn't say that it shouldn't exist, only that it isn't constitutional.

 

[dutchfire]

In response to Leonel:

The Republican position on disaster relief:

We need to abolish FEMA



WHY IS FEMA NOT DOING ANYTHING?



Oh, have I mentioned that we need to abolish FEMA?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

FEMA - Providing for the GENERAL WELFARE since 1978.

Unconstitutional indeed, "lol".

 

[WindFish]

Ghostwriter

Is the airforce constitutional?

Are Driving Licences constitutional?

Is the car constitutional?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Airforce? Yeah, its part of the national defense.

Drivier's license? Not at a Federal level. At a state level yeah.

Car? Huh? What the crap does that have to do with government? The bailouts weren't constitutional if that's what you mean.

 

[WindFish]

Airforce? Yeah, its part of the national defense.

They aren't in the constitution though.

Drivier's license? Not at a Federal level. At a state level yeah.

Car? Huh? What the crap does that have to do with government? The bailouts weren't constitutional if that's what you mean.

I see.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@ATPG-

In this case I agree with you that they should do so. Its not a bad organization. I even said such, that I didn't say that it shouldn't exist, only that it isn't constitutional.

Now you have to say why it is unconstitutional.

What in the constitution specifically states that there shall be no federal management of national disasters?

Point it out to me

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

When you agree that there's no practical reason to be opposed to FEMA,

and,

you fail to point out why you keep harping on about its lack of constitutionality,

then,

you will have proved that the religion of Ron Paul motivates people to argue against things that they think are perfectly sound, and do so, for no reason whatsoever except to suckle at Ron Paul's teat.

At that point, you must leave discussions of politics forever.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's go over it piece by piece.

1. The federal government has the power to levy taxes on the people. Do you deny? That's in the constitution, pal.

2. The federal government has the power to spend those tax dollars to promote the general welfare. That's also in the constitution, buddy.

3. FEMA.

Are we done here?

 

[JohannaK]

I think we're done with triple-posting. Please Pizza, I politely ask you to edit things in previous posts if with such short intervals and no responses.

 

[dutchfire]

Yes, triple posting is clearly unconstitutional, since it is never mentioned explicitly in the constitution.

 

[JohannaK]

Yes, triple posting is clearly unconstitutional, since it is never mentioned explicitly in the constitution.

Indeed, and pizza should feel bad for abusing it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes, triple posting is clearly unconstitutional, since it is never mentioned explicitly in the constitution.

Absolutely.

Having said that though, he made a great point and I await with baited breath for GhostWriter16's response. Or 3.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Now you have to say why it is unconstitutional.

What in the constitution specifically states that there shall be no federal management of national disasters?

Point it out to me

The tenth amendment.

That puts the burden on you.

Your argument that you gave might work though. Since FEMA is for the welfare of the populace in general, and not specific people, that MAY be a valid constitutional argument.

When you agree that there's no practical reason to be opposed to FEMA,

and,

you fail to point out why you keep harping on about its lack of constitutionality,

then,

you will have proved that the religion of Ron Paul motivates people to argue against things that they think are perfectly sound, and do so, for no reason whatsoever except to suckle at Ron Paul's teat.

At that point, you must leave discussions of politics forever.

No I don't. Firstly I didn't mention Ron Paul in this thread. Second, I can perfectly rationally say that something may be a good idea but is still unconstitutional.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The tenth amendment.

That puts the burden on you.

Your argument that you gave might work though. Since FEMA is for the welfare of the populace in general, and not specific people, that MAY be a valid constitutional argument.

No, the tenth ammendment (crap I wrote commandment at first) doesn't preclude FEMA at all.

Essentially you've ducked the question by saying we have to prove it when we already have.

Can congress pass laws to promote the general welfare? Yes
Can congress tax people to pay for such laws? Yes

It's hard facing something you've been taught shouldn't be true. But you can do it. Your journey to the dark side is nearly complete. Join us.

Your move sir.

 

[Formaldehyde]

We really need to completely rewrite the Constitution while taking away most of the powers of the states. Not only will it stifle the far-right from incessantly complaining that most everything is "unconstitutional", it will return at least some badly needed sanity to our legal system while making it far harder for them to legislate morality in the more backward states as they now do.

If we are really lucky it might even cause some of those states to secede.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Hobbs- I think you may be right in this case, depending on how you define "General welfare."