Hi everyone. This forum is for people to post the whatever they think about the current leaders of whatever country that they choose.
Please be informed on what you are posting prior to posting it, and please keep arguments civil. Thanks. :)
Well, I can't really slander the Tory government yet, although they may be planning a massive tax hike.
Hmm... I'll get back to you, probably after the tax hike comes into effect and nobody can afford food any more. Maybe sooner.
1. I think the EU has the right idea when it comes to cutting spending and reducing their deficit. Obama is digging the US in a deeper hole with his increase in taxes and his ridiculous increase in spending.
2. Iraq needs to get in shape. It has been 5 months since thier election, yet they still don't have a PM.
3. Israel needs to stop building settlements in the future Palestinian state.
4. Iran needs to stop trying to make nukes.
5. Russia and China needs to stop hapering the West from stopping Iran from getting nukes.
6. China needs to blaim North Korea for sinking a South Korean ship that killed 46 people.
7. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez needs to shut up, because he is not nearly as important as he thinks he is.
I disagree with one four and five, I think that Obama is doing the best that he can given the state of things. If you have a better I dea I'd like to hear it, that was an honest request, not a sassback.
Quote from: im2smart4u on July 20, 2010, 08:47:09 PM
I think the EU has the right idea when it comes to cutting spending and reducing their deficit. Obama is digging the US in a deeper hole with his increase in taxes and his ridiculous increase in spending.
Quote from: namelesskitty on July 21, 2010, 12:42:29 PM
I agree with one four and five, I think that Obama is doing the best that he can given the state of things. If you have a better I dea I'd like to hear it, that was an honest request, not a sassback.
The better idea was to do what the EU was doing. Obama was the only one at the G8 who wants to increase government spending.
Businesses are unwilling to invest money until they feel they have a safe enviroment to do business in. Obama wants to increases taxes of corporations, overly increase regulations, require businesses to pay for health care for every employee, have a cap and gains tax, stop off shore drilling, and est. Businesses are holding back 1.6trillion dollars, because they are unsure what the next anti-business law he will try to pass. To save the economy Obama has to do something that he is unwilling and unable to do. Move towards the middle. I honestly don't think the economy will recover untill a Ronald Reagan type character becomes president and inspires businesses to invest in the economy.
Quote from: im2smart4u on July 20, 2010, 08:47:09 PM
1. I think the EU has the right idea when it comes to cutting spending and reducing their deficit. Obama is digging the US in a deeper hole with his increase in taxes and his ridiculous increase in spending.
4. Iran needs to stop trying to make nukes.
5. Russia and China needs to stop hapering the West from stopping Iran from getting nukes.
Quote from: namelesskitty on July 21, 2010, 12:42:29 PM
I disagree with one, four, and five
You mentioned the three you disagree with, but you didn't mention which ones you do agree with.
Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Do you wish harm towards Israel and America?
Quote from: im2smart4u on July 22, 2010, 04:27:44 PM
Do you wish harm towards Israel and America?
Bah, you know, that's one sensitive question to ask, im2msart4u, 'cause many people around the globe would say "yes" to both or one of them, and in some cases, quite vehemently.
I think it's pretty clear, by impication, that namelesskitty agrees with the rest of the points, namely 2, 3, 6 and 7, if he singled out 1,4 and 5 to specifically disagree with.
Personally, I agree with statements 1-6 in general (though only to the first part of statement 1, as I don't follow too closely what Obama's been up to), honestly don't care about 7, but would like to add a point 8 and 9 in the same spirit:
8. USA should try distance itself from China ASAP, and try to get financially indpendent of the said country, lest no one remains at all to keep China in check for the future.
9. EU should try and diversify its oil and gas sources, lest they continue to be too energetically dependent on Russia.
Quote from: KZ on July 24, 2010, 10:04:34 AM
Quote from: im2smart4u on July 22, 2010, 04:27:44 PM
Do you wish harm towards Israel and America?
Bah, you know, that's one sensitive question to ask, im2smart4u, 'cause many people around the globe would say "yes" to both or one of them, and in some cases, quite vehemently.
Many people around the globe don't like America, but few would wish for them to have a nuclear weapon used on them(during 9/11 some cheered, but most of the world was on the US side). To allow Iran to build a nuke is to say "Fuck you, we don't care about your safety". Because nations like China and Russia are unwilling to have sanctions against Iran's energy sector, state-sponsored terrorist will have access to nuclear materials. As soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will want one too. It will be like the cold war again, but this time it will be with religious fanatics.
Quote from: KZ on July 24, 2010, 10:04:34 AMI think it's pretty clear, by impication, that namelesskitty agrees with the rest of the points, namely 2, 3, 6 and 7, if he singled out 1,4 and 5 to specifically disagree with.
I can't tell if he has no opinion on the matter or if he agrees.
Quote from: KZ on July 24, 2010, 10:04:34 AMhonestly don't care about 7,
Exactly, he isn't nearly as important as he thinks he is.
Quote from: KZ on July 24, 2010, 10:04:34 AM8. USA should try distance itself from China ASAP, and try to get financially indpendent of the said country, lest no one remains at all to keep China in check for the future.
The USA hates China like heroin addicts hate heroin. We want to stop, but we can't. Overpoplulation is both China's strength and weakness. China needs the status quo, because if they don't have jobs, then millions of people go hungry which may cause a revolution.
Mmm, I am more concerned with N. Korea- at least the Iranian leaders seem to be sane, and seem to be following a logical path- ie they're prdictable, which isn't something I can say of N. Korea's leaders or their policies- and that is quite dangerous, especially to the neighbouring countries like Japan and S. Korea.
For point 8, unfortunately it is true, and I am rather worried by the amount of power China yields these days- there has to be a counterbalance, otherwise we'll have the "one-bully-in-the-playgorund" policy all over again, and that's even worse than having at least 2 bullies around. Methinks the best situation is to have a strong EU, which shares some of its policies with USA, a moderately strong Russia, having a local, but not much of a global influence, a subdued China locked horns with a coming-up India, and a healthy Brazil somewhere out there. Throw in an internally bothered Iran, and we're set on course for a slightly brighter future.
Brighter as in world war 3?
What I mean is that the bullys, if you wll want all of the power for themselves if we could put a teacher on the playground, so to continue that metaphor, my choice is that the UN could police anything major and international while petty things can be left up to the countries to sort out.
This would involve giving the UN real power , but I think that the benifits outweigh the risks.
I know my opinion probably insn't wanted here but I agree with im2smart4u on everyone of his points. And the US just needs to shut up and pull back all it's troops and just keep to itself until we get back on our feet. Taxes are wrong. Poiticians are more or less pomous idiots with nothing in mind but their own agenda and I wil continue this list later.
-Edited-
I'm okay with helping poverty ridden countries, but we need to help the starving in America too
but we do want to hear you comments, in fact I'd love to hear why you think that.
Ehh. Just because someone wants to know why I think what I do, doesn't mean I'm going to.
[spoiler]I have my reasons. Don't ask. You really don't want to know.[/spoiler]
Quote from: bugfartboy on July 29, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
I know my opinion probably insn't wanted here but I agree with im2smart4u on everyone of his points.
Your opinion probably isn't wanted, because you agree with me. On this forum, people rarely do that.
Quote from: bugfartboy on July 29, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
Taxes are wrong.
That statement is extreme. I think it is wrong to raise taxes so the government can control things that they shouldn't be controling like health care, car companies, retirement savings, student loans, and est. Taxes should only be spent on stuff like regulation, defence, security, and infrastructure.
Quote from: bugfartboy on July 29, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
I'm okay with helping poverty ridden countries, but we need to help the starving in America too
It is wierd that there are people who go hungry when the government pays farmers to not grow food.
QuoteI think it is wrong to raise taxes so the government can control things that they shouldn't be controling like health care, car companies, retirement savings, student loans, and est. Taxes should only be spent on stuff like regulation, defence, security, and infrastructure.
Do you not want centralized health care, why not, it stands to save the lives of tens of millions of people, do you wish harm towards those people who currently can't afford health care? also the tax increases are only on people who can afford it, like CEOs and the sort.
Medicaid is need to help the very poor and Medicare is met to help the elderly. Centralized health care takes away a person's ability to take care of their famlily. Instead of purchasing good health care, we have to hope that the government rationed health care will treat the illness that afflicts our family. In countries with socialized health care, bureaucrats can deem some illnesses to expensive to treat, so tough luck to people who get that disease. That is why some Canadians go to the US for treatment.
The rich already pay an unfair percentage of their income in taxes. The government and people like you don't mind spending alot of other people's money. The top 5% earners already pay 53.8% of all individual income taxes which is about a third of their income. Taking away a third of the money they earn isn't enough, so what percent does seem fair? Why don't they keep working hard for their money and then we take awat 100% of their income, so we can redistribute the wealth?
FYI, I might be in that tax bracket.
as for Medicare and Medicaid, they can do the same thing, perhaps the US could adopt the same policies as Australia, they have amazing health care and lower taxes (if you count all taxes including sales, income (state and country), and homeowners taxes.
FACT CHECK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_fact_check;_ylt=Ar3TUJJQfiwTUbmJJGLdKCayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2N2lrODRhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzI5L3VzX29iYW1hX2xpYnlhX2ZhY3RfY2hlY2sEY3BvcwMxMQRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDZmFjdGNoZWNraG93)
Quote from: FACT CHECKObama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
Hmm... Seems a little hypocritical of him. And I thought it was Congress and Congress only that could declare war. Article 1 Section 10. If a State can't do it without being in danger, what says the President can?
It's not a war, smarty.
By the way, if you really are interested in the facts -- not just the facts you like:
Quote from: The Constitution of the United States of America: Article I, Section 8, Clause 11
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal [which are authorization for a private vessel to attack the enemies of the state], and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
This is not a declared war, and it's also a UN-sanctioned attack and a signed resolution, which gives the emergency resolution in the UN authorization to
supercede the Constitution, under Article VI, Section 2, Clause 2:
Quote from: The Constitution: Article VI, Section 2, Clause 2
[And] all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
I hope this answers any questions you may have concerning the Constitutionality of the military attack on Libya, and whether Obama is violating the basic laws of this country. I also hope you realize that if Obama had waited to recieve the approval of Congress, the Libyan rebels wouldn't be able to remove from power an unjust and oppressive dictator.
Ironically, "FACT CHECK" is not in the possession of all the facts, or, smarty, you're misinterpreting them.
I would want to praise the Canadian Government right now, but I can't. I don't know how many of you guys know this or not, but there is an Election going on in Canada right now.
I personally want to see the conservatives get a majority government because of two reasons. 1. If the conservatives don't get a majority, the liberals will form a coalition which the NDP and Bloc (A Separatist Party) which would extremely risky for Canada to go through right now. 2. Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the liberals, just recently appeared back in Canada, after leaving to the states for 30 years. And now he suddenly wants to come back and be Prime Minister? Sounds fishy to me.
Although, the Conservatives have their downside too. Getting a non-confidence vote from the other 3 parties because his party was found in contempt. And sometimes it can seem like he is a bit too conservative. He also recently spent money on 26 new fighter jets and better prisons.
Its your call though, A Strong Conservative Majority with a bit of mis-ethics, or a Liberal Lead Coalition that is unstable. Here are the parties:
Conservatives: Right Wing
Liberals: Center Wing/Right Wing
NDP: Left Wing/Social democracy
Bloc: Social democracy (want Quebec to separate from Canada)
I have a question for non-Canadians. Who would you vote for?
The Liberals, if they weren't coallitioning.
Since they are, however, I'd have to say the Republicans. Wait, are you getting voting advice from a website devoted to a game? :o
Quote from: Duckling on April 02, 2011, 08:16:42 PM
The Liberals, if they weren't coallitioning.
Since they are, however, I'd have to say the Republicans. Wait, are you getting voting advice from a website devoted to a game? :o
One, I'm not old enough to vote. Second, I want to see what Non-Canadians think about our election. Third, The Republicans!?! Their the Conservatives! There is a difference!
You're old enough to vote? Or did you leave out the "not"?
Quote from: Bugfartboy on April 02, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
You're old enough to vote? Or did you leave out the "not"?
Thanks for catching that. But yes, I'm not old enough to vote.
Well, as long as the Republican isn't a lunatic, and as long as the threat of Quebec's separation is imminent because of this coallition, yes.
Ignoring the fact that the Obama criticises Bush for the Iraq War despite Bush getting congressional approval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution) and that the War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) requires Obama to get congressional approval for committing armed forces to military action, lets pretend this military attack isn't a "war". Candidate Obama said, "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Libya isn't niether an "actual or imminent threat to the nation", so according to candidate Obama, President Obama is knowingly doing something unconstitutional when he authorized a military attack on Libaya without even attempting to get congressional approval.
I never understood the appeal for Quebec to succeed from the rest of Canada.
The president himself does not have this power. If he agrees to, along with multiple other countries, it's within his power.
In short, the president has the power to authorize the use by NATO, and by the UN, of US forces, but not to send them by himself.
If you're going to bring up the War Powers Resolution, you may want to know that it says that the president [Obama] must notify Congress within 48 hours, and also must withdraw forces after sixty days if Congress's approval has not been achieved by this time. Neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution forbids his actions at the moment. I believe Candidate Obama, when he said your oft-quoted quote, meant for longer than sixty days. The Iraq "War" lasted significantly longer than sixty days, and troops certainly did not attempt to withdraw by ninety.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 04, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
I never understood the appeal for Quebec to succeed from the rest of Canada.
Me neither... anyone has an explanation?
Well, they want to "perverse" their culture. As most people know, they speech French in Quebec. However, unlike us Loyalists, who are the good people (God Bless the Queen!), they have no love of France. Thus they have remained isolated, creating their own unique culture. Once the Seven Years War (Decided who had control over "Canada") happened, they lost and ever since the English have been trying to get rid of their culture. However, in the 1960's a Prime Minister named Pierre Trudeau created a equal rights bill the made French and English the Federal Languages. Then in the 1970s, another bill passed that that the people of Quebec could keep their Languages and Tradition. The bloc are a group of extremists who think that Quebec would be better off by themselves, which might have been true - 75 years ago.
Quote from: Duckling on April 04, 2011, 05:03:00 PMThe president himself does not have this power. If he agrees to, along with multiple other countries, it's within his power.
In short, the president has the power to authorize the use by NATO, and by the UN, of US forces, but not to send them by himself.
So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"? So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress?::) Even with UN approval, the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Quote from: Duckling on April 04, 2011, 05:03:00 PMIf you're going to bring up the War Powers Resolution, you may want to know that it says that the president [Obama] must notify Congress within 48 hours, and also must withdraw forces after sixty days if Congress's approval has not been achieved by this time. Neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution forbids his actions at the moment. I believe Candidate Obama, when he said your oft-quoted quote, meant for longer than sixty days. The Iraq "War" lasted significantly longer than sixty days, and troops certainly did not attempt to withdraw by ninety.
A)This conflict in Libya is going to last longer then 60 days, so Obama is required to get congresstional approval
B)There was congresstional approval for the Iraq War unlike our involvement in the war in Libya, so I don't see your point
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 05, 2011, 06:18:11 PM
So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"? So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress?::)
I think the views/laws of the UN supersede those of the American Constitution/Congress, but it is just my opinion. I mean they are trying to making decisions for the betterment of the
world, not just the states.
Seconded by Duckling.
I'm agreeing with im2smart4u on this one. It doesn't seem right that a man who is "allegedly" an American gets to simply walk right over the laws he himself is supposed to be governed by simply because another country said "Come on... Your 'laws' don't matter. You can simply follow ours! :)" in essence. While it may have been "KIND" of him to try to help, it certainly isn't right by the Constitution the States are governed by.
It wasn't another country. It was NATO and the UN. Bit of a difference.
" 'Allegedly' "?
Barack Obama is quite American, born in Hawaii. And he hasn't walked over them yet.
And didn't we just go over this? The Constitution itself doesn't actually forbid it, and in fact encourages the US to form treaties with other countries, our interest in having positive relations with other countries superceding our need to avoid unilaterally decided military attack.
The War Powers Resolution is a non-Constitutional document with, admittedly, similar binding force, but it is no longer a Constitutional issue, and Obama hasn't broken the terms of this agreement as of yet.
I believe the definition of "war" is as follows.
Quote from: Dictionary.com
- noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.
aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.
a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.
Cards .
1. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
2. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.
Archaic . a battle.
- verb (used without object)
10.
to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11.
to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12.
to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
- adjective
13.
of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.
HERE'S THE LINK (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/War)
Wow! The definition of war seems to be very very similar, if not exactly like, what Obama started! Wonder why?
If you choose to interpret the War Powers Clause in the Constitution as referring to war, and thus to your list of definitions, that may have been what the Founding Fathers wanted. But in the current interpretation of the text, which does not actually mention war per se, the War Powers Clause does indeed refer to military action.
What I'm trying to say is that despite this, another part of the same document, albeit on a different page, says that you can ignore that bit if you sign on it with another country. In case you're wondering, that's how the Controlled Substance Act works. If treaties couldn't supercede the Constitution, then the federal government would have no way to prevent anyone from smoking marijuana drug, opium drug, or ingesting cocaine drug. Many other matters of intra-state trade control (which the federal gov. is not allowed to do, Constitutionally) are resolved by using treaties.
Quote from: Duckling on April 05, 2011, 10:26:18 PM" 'Allegedly' "?
Barack Obama is quite American, born in Hawaii. And he hasn't walked over them yet.
I find funny that people still think Obama is a secret muslim terrorist who was born in Kenya/Indonesia.
Quote from: Duckling on April 05, 2011, 10:26:18 PMAnd didn't we just go over this? The Constitution itself doesn't actually forbid it, and in fact encourages the US to form treaties with other countries, our interest in having positive relations with other countries superceding our need to avoid unilaterally decided military attack.
According to the Constitution, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...." This still means that Obama needs congresstional approval to agree to the UN resolution. Plus, no where in the UN resolution says America or any other country has to commit troops. That means that every country and thier legislative body have to make the choose to commit armed forces to military action.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 05, 2011, 07:13:47 PMI think the views/laws of the UN supersede those of the American Constitution/Congress, but it is just my opinion. I mean they are trying to making decisions for the betterment of the world, not just the states.
I see why
you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
Alright. Let's not get TOO hateful/prejudiced here.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 06, 2011, 12:57:43 PM
I see why you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
And
you think, that Canadians are just sitting around, watching the American's to go Libya? Just to let you know, we are also doing our part in helping the people in Libya (Mind you, not to our fullest potential right now, as we have an election going on).
Quote from: Zackirus on April 06, 2011, 03:48:36 PM
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 06, 2011, 12:57:43 PM
I see why you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
And you think, that Canadians are just sitting around, watching the American's to go Libya? Just to let you know, we are also doing our part in helping the people in Libya (Mind you, not to our fullest potential right now, as we have an election going on).
You're doing your part, yes, but you can't say other countries should do theirs. I agree with smarty, its up to the country in question to commit forces or not, and how many, and when. Obviously, we needed to help Libya, but it should have been done legally.
Mike stated what I, and I assume Smarty, have been getting at. It's good we helped, but not if it broke the laws of the land.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 06, 2011, 12:57:43 PM
It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
I find that remark unfair.
It must be easy for people in America to vote on using American personnel and resources because they personally wouldn't have to spend their own money or risk their own lives (not one of which has been lost in Libya, by the way).
Think of it this way, A teacher (Barrack Obama) wants to know if he can do X in his classes. He could go to the principal (U.S Congress) of the school, or he could go to the school board (The UN). I think the school board might have a better knowledge than one single principal...
The analogy is not perfect, but it works.
Anyway, I have an objection: If not for anything else, it would be polite of him to speak with the principal before speaking with the school board.
I like Obama. I agree with many of his ideas. But I think that in this case he should send this issue to Congress straight away.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 06, 2011, 05:52:52 PMThink of it this way, A teacher (Barrack Obama) wants to know if he can do X in his classes. He could go to the principal (U.S Congress) of the school, or he could go to the school board (The UN). I think the school board might have a better knowledge than one single principal...
Too bad that the school policy requires the teacher to ask permission from the principal. The principal needs to be asked, because if things go wrong, then the principal and the school (America) suffer, while the school board remains uneffected.
Quote from: Duckling on April 06, 2011, 05:39:46 PMQuote from: im2smart4u on April 06, 2011, 12:57:43 PMIt must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
I find that remark unfair.
It must be easy for people in America to vote on using American personnel and resources because they personally wouldn't have to spend their own money or risk their own lives.
The major difference is that
our fellow countrymen's lives are being risked and
our taxpayer dollars are the ones being spent. Are Canadians flying our jets over Libya? No, it is our famliy and friends who are the ones put in harms way. Are the Canadains paying for over 280 tomahawk missiles that cost about 1.5 million dollars each? No, that cost is the burden of the American taxpayers. War is such a serious matter that committing armed forces to military action is not a decision that should be left to one man (even the President) and a group of foreigners. That is why the founding fathers gave the decision to go to war to Congress.
I was always aware that the teacher could either go to the principal or school board. I mean the principal does need to get approval from the school board for a lot of education things...
Yes, our soldiers lives are being put on the line as well. We are flying are own jets over Libya using are own missiles and bombs. Canadians are doing their part too. Sure not as much as the America, but we are still using our tax payers money for this. You act as though everyone is watching you while you get rid of the problem. What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was that after World War One, an organization was formed that included most of the world's countries. This organization does not pick and choose, it simply addresses the problem, and anyone who wants to help out can, and it gives them their approval.
I'm sorry but the UN doesn't look at specific country to take from, it only wants to improve the life of those or are in dire situations.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 06, 2011, 11:07:04 PMI was always aware that the teacher could either go to the principal or school board. I mean the principal does need to get approval from the school board for a lot of education things...
It doesn't matter who a teacher asks, because it is a stupid analogy. The President has to get congresstional approval according to the consititution.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 06, 2011, 11:07:04 PMYes, our soldiers lives are being put on the line as well. We are flying are own jets over Libya using are own missiles and bombs. Canadians are doing their part too. Sure not as much as the America, but we are still using our tax payers money for this. You act as though everyone is watching you while you get rid of the problem. What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was that after World War One, an organization was formed that included most of the world's countries. This organization does not pick and choose, it simply addresses the problem, and anyone who wants to help out can, and it gives them their approval.
Good for them. (Canada didn't fire a single tomahawk missile and I can count all the Canadian deployed jets on one hand.) I don't think you see my point. Canada and the rest of the UN don't have the power to give Obama or anyone else the power to defy the Constitution. Lets say that the rest of the world wanted to quickly hunt down terrorists in Canada. Does the UN have the ability to allow Stephen Harper to ignore the Canadian Consititution and enforce unreasonable search and seizure?
Actually you can't count the amount of Jets we have deployed with one hand. We sent six :P. And we are using our own missiles... We can't send all of our jets because some of them are for use in training and some are in Afganistan.
Yes the UN has the ability to do that, if under the right circumstances. They would have to prove a dangerous threat the a lot of lives. Besies, it is not an act of war, it is simply miltary imvovlement.
What this propbably is, is a wrap around. Obama wants to help, but he thought that Congress wouldn't give him the approval, so he went to another source to get the okay, the UN.
In some respects, one could say that the UN is just a World Congress. They have quite a bit of power. So yes, to you question about Canada. But if it really were completely ridiculous, it mightn't pass.
Clearly you guys don't believe in sovereignty. Throughout Canadian history, the Canadians had the British make all the decsions for them, so I can see Zackirus why would rather listen to foreign powers then his local community.
You can call it "simply miltary invovlement" or whatever, but this is NATO choosing sides and then sending armed forces to kill people in a civil war.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 07, 2011, 11:12:20 PM
Clearly you guys don't believe in sovereignty. Throughout Canadian history, the Canadians had the British make all the decsions for them, so I can see Zackirus why would rather listen to foreign powers then his local community.
You can call it "simply miltary invovlement" or whatever, but this is NATO choosing sides and then sending armed forces to kill people in a civil war.
First of All, we did not listen to Britain all throughout Canadian history. We could make laws ourselves, they just needed to be approved by the Queen (Representative). However, we did have to follow their laws. These Foreign powers, as I have said, try to look out for the world, not just their countries. America is not the only country that matters, I would know this first hand.
It has happened in Canadian history where something that was said by the government, has been changed from a higher power, and for the good. For example, in 1929 their was a famous Canadian case called The Persons Case. I'm sure you have never heard of it. What happened was that the Supreme Court of Canada decided after that women were not considered persons. So, the Famous Five, the five women who went to the Supreme court, got a another idea. They simply went to the British court, and the British court decided that women were considered persons, so by default, women were considered people in Canada. See, sometimes the higher powers have a better understand of whats going on.
So Canada doesn't have the competence to make the right decision for themselves, so they have the British do it for them?
American history is a little different. The British made decisions that benefited themselves despite the harm it caused to the American people. Instead of blindly following the foreign leaders' decisions like their northern neighbor, America decided that representatives of Americans would make better decisions for Americans then the foreign leaders.
I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
Canada does have the competence to make the right decisions, we abolished slavery and started the equal-rights movement, without British accord, much sooner than other countries.
Unlike our southern neighbo
urs, we had much more land and farming available to everyone, because we were nice to our Aboriginals, they didn't bother us as much, as we sent them to live on
reverses. Now, if we would shunned away our British influence, not as many Europeans would come to Canada. So, The price of the British government was a fair trade (as we did get Fair Trade!).
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 08, 2011, 09:10:17 PM
I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 08, 2011, 09:39:02 PMQuote from: im2smart4u on April 08, 2011, 09:10:17 PMI still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
It isn't arrogance; it is fact. For example, France and Britain were unwilling to strike in Libya untill they were able to use America's unrivaled Naval power to destroy Libya's anti-air power.
Quote from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_fact_check;_ylt=Ar3TUJJQfiwTUbmJJGLdKCayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2N2lrODRhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzI5L3VzX29iYW1hX2xpYnlhX2ZhY3RfY2hlY2sEY3BvcwMxMQRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDZmFjdGNoZWNraG93As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions. Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War? If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best. When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 09, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions. Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War? If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best. When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.
Canada, while not the strongest military wise, has another role. We are the original peace-keepers. Lester B. Pearson, our 14th Prime Minister, defused the Suez crisis, and started the original peace-keeping in the UN. While Canada might have not been able to protect Kuwait or South Korea, we had another role. We kept the peace after wars have ended. While, the fight for peace is very important, so is keeping it. If we didn't do our Job, you would have fought a lot of more wars.
I moved the discussion about the Independence from the British Empire (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=881.msg35029#msg35029).
FACT CHECK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya_fact_check;_ylt=Ar3TUJJQfiwTUbmJJGLdKCayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2N2lrODRhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzI5L3VzX29iYW1hX2xpYnlhX2ZhY3RfY2hlY2sEY3BvcwMxMQRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDZmFjdGNoZWNraG93)
Quote from: FACT CHECKObama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
Putting aside the fact that Obama in ignoring the Constitution, can you at least admit that Obama is a hypocrite?
I don't think that's really in doubt at this point. Though in fairness, everyone breaks a lot of their campaign promises.
I love how Obama claims to be a christian yet doubtlessly supports abortion.
It's called being a politician. Do whatever it takes to get into office, then do whatever. Then, when election time comes back around, do whatever it takes to be reelected. Then, if you are reelected, do whatever you want to botch stuff for the next person to take your office.
Quote from: Deagonx on April 11, 2011, 08:23:10 PMI love how Obama claims to be a christian yet doubtlessly supports abortion.
Different Christians have different definitions of when cells become a person. Some believe life begins at conception, while other believe life begins much later. But thats a whole different topic. Plus, Obama's church was always less about Christianity, then it was about "black theology". (It is has become outdated and racist in the 21st century.)
Quote from: Bugfartboy on April 11, 2011, 08:49:59 PMIt's called being a politician. Do whatever it takes to get into office, then do whatever. Then, when election time comes back around, do whatever it takes to be reelected. Then, if you are reelected, do whatever you want to botch stuff for the next person to take your office.
Obama didn't promise anything when discussing the president authorizing military attacks, so it wasn't a campain promise. He was just discussing his moral views. Apparently, he will willing to throw away his moral beliefs to make sure he doesn't lose political points.
The leader's debate just happened in Canada. Here ( in my opinion) is what happened.
The Conservative Leader, Stephen Harper, remained cool and collected throughout the debate, making rational arguments and responded quite well.
The Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatituf, complained a lot, and seemed to be more focused on what other parties will/have do/done that he spent little time selling his party.
The NDP Leader, Jack Layton, made excellent points and stirred up the pot in the debate. He poked fun at both the Liberals and Tories (conservatives) and was very compelling.
The Bloc Leader, Gilles, couldn't say one sentence without mentioning Quebec's needs and wants...
Quote from: Zackirus on April 12, 2011, 10:53:05 PM
The Bloc Leader, Gilles, couldn't say one sentence without mentioning Quebec's needs and wants...
Isn't that their entire platform?
Quote from: Zackirus on April 08, 2011, 09:39:02 PMQuote from: im2smart4u on April 08, 2011, 09:10:17 PMI still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
France and Britain admit that they can't halt Gadhafi's assault against civilians in places like Misrata without American firepower. Its not arrogance; It is history that says America has lead the free world militarily and politically since WWII.
"Let's be realistic. The fact that the U.S. has left the sort of the kinetic part of the air operation has had a sizable impact. That is fairly obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
-Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_re_us/uc_us_libya;_ylt=At2qoxhuj9Jt03FnV.65DSW96Q8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJpNTVtMWw1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDEyL3VjX3VzX2xpYnlhBHBvcwMyNARzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNkZXNwaXRlbmF0b3I-)
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 13, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
Quote from: Zackirus on April 08, 2011, 09:39:02 PMQuote from: im2smart4u on April 08, 2011, 09:10:17 PMI still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
France and Britain admit that they can't halt Gadhafi's assault against civilians in places like Misrata without American firepower. Its not arrogance; It is history that says America has lead the free world militarily and politically since WWII.
"Let's be realistic. The fact that the U.S. has left the sort of the kinetic part of the air operation has had a sizable impact. That is fairly obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
-Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_re_us/uc_us_libya;_ylt=At2qoxhuj9Jt03FnV.65DSW96Q8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJpNTVtMWw1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDEyL3VjX3VzX2xpYnlhBHBvcwMyNARzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNkZXNwaXRlbmF0b3I-)
Furthermore, the current NATO general has totally botched the operation. He even bombed rebel tanks, saying that he didn't know that they had tanks when he almost certainly had heard it, and then refused to apologize. Three articles:
Killing 13 Rebels (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/968156--nato-airstrike-accidentally-kills-13-rebels-in-libya)
Article Proving How Vital the US is (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110413/ap_on_go_ot/uc_us_libya_4)
Link About Destruction of Tanks by NATO (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42488973/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/)
Quote from: MikeW781 on April 13, 2011, 07:51:13 PMFurthermore, the current NATO general has totally botched the operation. He even bombed rebel tanks, saying that he didn't know that they had tanks when he almost certainly had heard it, and then refused to apologize. Three articles:
Killing 13 Rebels (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/968156--nato-airstrike-accidentally-kills-13-rebels-in-libya)
Link About Destruction of Tanks by NATO (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42488973/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/)
I haven't heard of any evidence that anyone knew that the rebels had tanks.
This is merely a collation partnership imposing a no-fly zone through a military operation (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/odyssey-dawn---unconstitutional-war)
I saw another article saying that footage of the rebel tanks had been one Youtube almost a week before, and unfortunately was unable to find this article, despite searching.
Dean Lukas: While it is their platform, they could at least try to expand into other areas. It is very annoying when you are listening to what the different Parties are saying about our Healthcare, mind you is one of the best in the world, when Gilles rants on about the needs of Quebec, and how they are "special"
im2smart4u: I love how you jump from the Canadian political debate to what is happening in Libya. I don't doubt that America is one of the leading countries in the world, but, there is something called Modesty which everyone needs to learn, no matter how powerful... Furthermore, I didn't see you defuse the Suez Crisis or Peace Keep in Afganistan, and those went pretty smoothly.
Quote from: Zackirus on April 13, 2011, 10:23:59 PMim2smart4u: I love how you jump from the Canadian political debate to what is happening in Libya. I don't doubt that America is one of the leading countries in the world, but, there is something called Modesty which everyone needs to learn, no matter how powerful... Furthermore, I didn't see you defuse the Suez Crisis or Peace Keep in Afganistan, and those went pretty smoothly.
Unlike some people(not implying you), I don't talk about subjects that I don't know about, so I am not talking about Canadian politics.
In fact, American President Eisenhower was the one who lead the UN against the British and French actions. America also put economic pressure on Britain which forced them to call for a cease fire. In Afganistan, it is an US lead NATO operation. America is usually put in the dangerous parts of the country, while other NATO members are given the less hostile provinces to secure. The problem is that no one is willing to admit that Afganistan is a lost cause. Most of the population of Afganistan hasn't ever heard of 9/11, but everyone has heard of redneck evangelical who was burning the Quran in Florida.
This is merely a collation partnership imposing a no-fly zone through a military operation (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/odyssey-dawn---unconstitutional-war)
About Afaganistan: I was referring to the on-going peace operations, not the incident that happened in the 80's. Your still missing my point, it is very good to be a powerful country, but with great power comes great responsibility, not only in how you use that power, but in how you show that power to other people. We know you are the "strongest" but you don't need to keep telling us...
You're still missing my point. I am saying that you don't care about undermining the US Constitution, because UN countries like Canada don't have the power to do anything themselves.
And he's rebutted that point multiple times.
In terms of military power, he's pointed out that Canada is participating in the military strike against Libya.
In terms of political power, he's pointed out that
a) Canada can be quite influential when it needs to be
b) "With great power comes great responsibility" -- (Uncle Ben)
About undermining the Constitution, we've pointed out multiple times that it's not, and los Padres Fundandos probably shouldn't have put in that bit about treaties in the sixth article of the Consitution if they didn't bloody want to use it!
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 10:50:22 AMAbout undermining the Constitution, we've pointed out multiple times that it's not, and los Padres Fundandos probably shouldn't have put in that bit about treaties in the sixth article of the Consitution if they didn't bloody want to use it!
Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) says that the Supreme Court has "regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty".
Oh? Then can you explain how the Controlled Substances Act remains Constitutional? I may have to cite Reid v. Covert in that case.
Quote from: Duckling on April 17, 2011, 06:15:30 PMThen can you explain how the Controlled Substances Act remains Constitutional?
Can you explain how the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional?
Yes. It violates the states' rights to put their own laws upon trade within the state. States have rights -- all those not specifically granted to the federal government, as per the Tenth Amendment.
Quote from: Duckling on April 19, 2011, 08:42:43 PMYes. It violates the states' rights to put their own laws upon trade within the state. States have rights -- all those not specifically granted to the federal government, as per the Tenth Amendment.
Basically, Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) said the Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) has allowed the federal government do almost anything that has any effect on the economy. For example, Obama said the Commerce Clause allows him to mandate health insurance, because being alive is considered commerce.
No. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn because his activities affected interstate trade, because wheat was traded nationally. Marijuana does not have such a national trade; it grows most anywhere, and cultivation and distribution is nearly completely local. The United States can outlaw interstate trade of anything, but if the interstate trade is cut off, the product is no longer traded nationally, and no further Commerce Clause restrictions apply.
Health insurance applies because the market is national; people travel between states to recieve it, and health insurers operate in multiple states. But if there is no interstate trade, the intrastate trade cannot be regulated as per the Tenth Amendment.
Yeah except Marijuana isn't a drug :D
Now that you've agreed to that, with the reservation that marijuana drug isn't a drug, which simply isn't true, you've implied that if marijuana does in fact turn out to be a drug, you agree.
Marijuana drug has effects on the functioning of the brain. Therefore, it is a drug. Therefore, you agree. Good: I need all the supporters I can get!
My computer is a drug, it affects my brain.
My friends are a drug, they help me make decisions, thus effecting my brain.
Silly little duckling, with that logic everything is a drug.
Air is a drug, it gives chemicals to you that effect your brain.
IMO, for something to be a drug it has to be manmade, or have something specific done to it.
So stop with the ignorant textbook definitions. Everything around me has an effect on my brain. Therefore, everything is a drug.
I honestly thought you would be more insightful than that. If you truly don't want a definition that fully explains the meaning of the word drug, I'm going to have to give it to you.
"A drug... is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function."
"A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction."
You can stop with the ad hominem, deagonx.
Were I silly, that would not affect the validity of my argument.
Were I little, neither would that affect the validity of my argument.
Were I silly and little, that, too, would not affect the validity of my argument.
I am neither silly nor little.
That said, you bring nothing of value or accuracy to the discussion with that particular labeling of me, DemonDuck.
IYO, drugs can be chickens for all it matters, but according to standard English, drug means the aforementioned. If you are using a differing dialect of English, please inform me. Not all drugs are manmade.
And finally, "affect" is a verb, and a noun meaning something completely unrelated. Talk to Craig about that.
"Effect" is the noun form of affect, and one that affects may have an effect.
Quote from: Duckling on April 20, 2011, 06:36:26 PMNo. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn because his activities affected interstate trade, because wheat was traded nationally. Marijuana does not have such a national trade; it grows most anywhere, and cultivation and distribution is nearly completely local. The United States can outlaw interstate trade of anything, but if the interstate trade is cut off, the product is no longer traded nationally, and no further Commerce Clause restrictions apply.
I don't think you understood Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat, but by growing wheat, he effected the supply and demand which gives the federal government jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. Congress has the right to eliminate the supply and trade of any protect due to the Commerce Clause.
Quote from: Duckling on April 20, 2011, 06:36:26 PMHealth insurance applies because the market is national; people travel between states to recieve it, and health insurers operate in multiple states. But if there is no interstate trade, the intrastate trade cannot be regulated as per the Tenth Amendment.
I may be wrong, but I don't think you can buy insurance across state lines, because of all the conflicting state health care laws. The Republicans' plan was to try to allow consumers to buy over state lines, so competition increases which causes prices to drop. You didn't hear much about the plan because it was overshadowed by Obama's plan to socialize health care.
Oh, please excuse me for getting the 2 mixed up.
Except, the thing is: Weed doesn't alter normal body function. I cannot tell the difference, only thing is: They seem happier
Im confused why you are trying to keep people from being happy.
Okay. Getting off topic here. Can you redirect the marijuana talk to it's thread?
Marijuana is a large part of current administration of countries.
Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 10:46:30 PMMarijuana is a large part of current administration of countries.
For example, you had to be high to vote for the new health care bill.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 20, 2011, 11:58:11 PM
Quote from: Deagonx on April 20, 2011, 10:46:30 PMMarijuana is a large part of current administration of countries.
For example, you had to be high to vote for the new health care bill.
I lol'ed
Wait, is that some sort of pothead crack at me? because I don't smoke...
You can stop hating on the healthcare bill now -- it's all right. It's passed. Unless there is another healthcare bill?
Anyway, seriously. Marijuana is a drug, recognized as such by the FDA, the WHO, and me. It makes people artificially "happy", and this is an alteration of the body's normal functioning. The human body is not designed to be high. The end. Now, as Buggy said, keep the marijuana debate where it belongs, unless you'd like to talk about the political aspects of marijuana and how you think your leaders are handling the problem. If you want to talk about the lack of medical benefits, the fact that it's a drug, or the long-term health risks associated with this drug and its use, go to the Marijuana thread.
Quote from: im2smart4u on April 20, 2011, 10:31:20 PM
Quote from: Duckling on April 20, 2011, 06:36:26 PMNo. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn because his activities affected interstate trade, because wheat was traded nationally. Marijuana does not have such a national trade; it grows most anywhere, and cultivation and distribution is nearly completely local. The United States can outlaw interstate trade of anything, but if the interstate trade is cut off, the product is no longer traded nationally, and no further Commerce Clause restrictions apply.
I don't think you understood Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat, but by growing wheat, he effected the supply and demand which gives the federal government jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. Congress has the right to eliminate the supply and trade of any protect due to the Commerce Clause.
Quote from: Duckling on April 20, 2011, 06:36:26 PMHealth insurance applies because the market is national; people travel between states to recieve it, and health insurers operate in multiple states. But if there is no interstate trade, the intrastate trade cannot be regulated as per the Tenth Amendment.
I may be wrong, but I don't think you can buy insurance across state lines, because of all the conflicting state health care laws. The Republicans' plan was to try to allow consumers to buy over state lines, so competition increases which causes prices to drop. You didn't hear much about the plan because it was overshadowed by Obama's plan to socialize health care.
I don't think
you fully understand Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn had every intention of using his wheat for his own personal use, and by growing it rather than buying it, or using the part of his crop that fell below the restricted levels, he affected the national market. If Obama declares that healthcare is national and socialized, then the use of intrastate healthcare affects the national commercial system of healthcare, post-socialization. So, after inter-state healthcare is established, intra-state healthcare may be removed or interfered with in whatever manner Obama sees fit (legally). However, in the other direction (shutting down trade), if the federal government shuts down state marijuana trade (supposing that, to start, marijuana was legal everywhere), they are authorized to do to, as the intra-state trade affects the national trade. However, if they shut down inter-state trade, Wickard v. Filburn precedent no longer applies;
there is no national trade. Therefore, intra-state trade cannot affect the national trade, therefore, it cannot be subject to limitations as per Wickard v. Filburn, as per the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Duck is right on this, Wickard v. Filburn did play out like that and he has used the correct interpretation of the ruling.
Well, In three to ten minutes I'll know who the next Prime Minister of Canada is...
Keep us updated please!
No Need, The Conservatives have a majority! They have won 167 seats (155 is a majority) and surprisingly the NDP who have never been official the party of opposition with 104 seats.
Conservatives: 168
NDP: 102
Liberal: 34
Bloc: 3
Green: 1
I have a mission for everyone, check tommorow's paper to see if it has the Canadian Election in it for me!
I was wondering when you'd tell us about the results.
Some ridings are still jumping around but the conservatives have won. The skies will be a bit more blue tomorrow folks.
Hmm... Thanks for keeping us in the know, Zack. Sorry, though. For reasons you and I have talked about before, I won't be able to check the paper.