I know I promised I was done, but it's a day later and the conversation is still on the front page and still continuing.
You want to argue about what nirvana thinks--well, nirvana thinks the FBI is unconstitutional. I believe I've shown this to be black-and-white, read-the-document wrong. The power of the executive to enforce the law is explicitly authorized. Okay, maybe there are some interesting questions about the proper scope of the Commerce Clause, but why are we framing this debate according to the terms of someone who has no clue what he's talking about?
>I believe I've shown this to be black-and-white, read-the-document wrong.
No you haven't. You provided two quotes from the constitution, referring to the limited powers I was talking about, and thus your quotes completely support my position. I've pointed this out already.
This means either you know that you've failed and all your interested in is adhominem-- which means you're incapable of making an argument here. Or you're simply not bright enough to comprehend the point I'm making, which I've illuminated several times.
The problem is, you can't be bothered to read the constitution, and what the constitution says doesn't really matter to your ideology, so you're just going to throw out unsupported nonsense, along with your personal attacks, and act like you've smugly shown me to be wrong.
You have utterly failed. Every time you characterize me, its because you can't rebut my point.
And you can't rebut my point because my point is correct. Its correct because I've actually read the constitution.
You should try it sometime.
I'm unlikely to respond because you always post the same stuff, generally ad hominem, and you never defend your points. But your running around and engaging in ad hominem is apparently not embarrassing enough even when others point it out. You and the others doing the same thing destroyed HN, you've made rational discussion impossible.
Article II, which I quoted, gives the president power to enforce laws. Article I, which I quoted, twice, gives Congress power to legislate this into existence. Article I gives Congress power to legislate any necessary and proper laws for any branch of government. As I have already said. There times, counting now. I even italicized the relevant parts for you when I repeated myself the other time.
Also, stop downvoting anyone who contradicts you. To downvote everyone not on your side is against the spirit of this site.
I love it when the down vote brigade forgets that you can't down vote people who are replying to you and tells you to stop down voting people!
You have still failed to provide a single quote from the constitution that supports your position. Your assertions here are not supported by the quotes you did provide, nor any other place in the constitution. I have also cited the enumerated powers clause which would be completely unnecessary if what you say is true. Since nobody is debating the existence of the enumerated powers clause, your asset ions are nonsense -- in fact, rebutted by my very first post in this topic.
The quotes you did provide, prove my claim. That government is empowered to pass such laws are necessary as to exercise the enumerated powers... and no more.
Until you can find the power in the enumerated powers, or in an a subsequently passed amendment, just asserting you've proven your position over and over again is kinda silly.
This document was written to be understandable by anyone. IF you read it, instead of quoting lines taken out of context you found online, you'll find that it is very clear on the matter.
I must conclude that you know I'm right, but me being right goes against the requirements of your ideology and so you can't admit I'm right and you must stick to repeating your assertion. I'll save you time. You can just stop replying here and save me the time of having to write this very same rebuttal once again.
Either you think the Necessary and Proper clause refers only to the enumerated powers of article 1, section 8, or that the power to execute law is not in fact a government power.
The constitution literally makes reference to the "foregoing powers, and all other Powers" being the province of Congressional law. All other powers, man. All of them. Including the executive's power to, quote, "execute law."
I'm not even sure what to do here. Neither of these are correct. But quoting the bare text of the Constitution doesn't even work. Next you'll assert that black is white.
You want to argue about what nirvana thinks--well, nirvana thinks the FBI is unconstitutional. I believe I've shown this to be black-and-white, read-the-document wrong. The power of the executive to enforce the law is explicitly authorized. Okay, maybe there are some interesting questions about the proper scope of the Commerce Clause, but why are we framing this debate according to the terms of someone who has no clue what he's talking about?