Posted 4 months, 9 days ago in 
Loading ...
Where in our constitution is the section that authorizes the federal government to force me to purchase and install a product that is hazardous to me and my family’s health?
This product that we must begin to use in our homes and businesses in the near future is the fluorescent light bulb. We will not longer have a choice.
These bulbs contain mercury and when they break the mercury is released into the air and it can cause brain, liver and kidney damage. Go to any place that sells these bulbs and read the warning label on the back. The label gives the EPA as the source for this warning.
This section in the constitution must be the same one that authorizes the government to tell employers how much they must pay their employees known as “minimum wage.” This, my friends, is fascism.
You may own the company, but the government tells you how to run it. Wake up, people. We must start doing something to stop the daily intrusion in to our lives.
PATRICIA BEAUCHAMP
Grand Junction
60 Responses to “Government mandates akin to fascism”
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letters author Patricia Beauchamp gives us a wake-up call on the abuse of power that mandates the purchase and use of a product harmful to our families. But what are we supposed to do after we wake up? She asked, how did the government get this power? Now THAT is a very good question. Do you suppose the lobbyist for a large corporation such as GE had something to do with the mandate? Of course they did. But that is not where the empowerment came from. That came from pressure from environmental groups for a smaller carbon footprint and conservation of electrical energy. But that alone is not what pushed this legislation over the top. Sure the politicians that voted for this measure wanted to be seen as going green, but that alone would not have been enough to overlook the obvious dangers of Mercury poisoning to the consumers children. Well then, what force in our country would have been powerful enough to overcome the obvious hazards of voting for such legislation? It had to be a force more powerful than the government, more powerful than the oil mega-corporations. A force powerful enough to reach into the wallets of every American without objection. A force powerful enough to overcome a parents fear of poisoning their own child. That mega-force that can sway political votes and prevent oil corporations from drilling off-shore or in ANWAR is political correctness, and who controls that all powerful force? Well, we do, of course, you and I by accepting without question the conclusions and decrees of a small group of professional, environmental, radical activists, who in their zealous mission to save the world have forgotten who they are saving the world for, if indeed we the people were ever even considered as part of that mission. Who can deny that in today’s politically correct world there is wide spread and intense concern for anything that might alter or change the habitat of the snail darter or perhaps this week our concern is focused on the black-footed ferret, but where is the outrage when the children of homeless families don’t get enough to eat? Where is the concern for the elderly citizens living on a fixed income who have to choose between heating their homes in the Colorado winter and having enough money left over to buy the simplest of foods. After we wake up, maybe we should recognize that political correctness comes from people who are not elected. They are self appointed, that their priorities might be different from our own, and that they are working tirelessly to make their political correctness our agenda. When are we going to wake up and start thinking for ourselves, as Patricia Beauchamp has?
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Beauchamp: “These bulbs contain mercury and when they break the mercury is released into the air and it can cause brain, liver and kidney damage. Go to any place that sells these bulbs and read the warning label on the back. The label gives the EPA as the source for this warning.”
Ever read the warning labels on the gasoline you pump into your car while you stand there breathing the fumes? Your risk from this toxic source is real. That from the fluorescent lamps is miniscule by comparison.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
What is the alternative to gasoline at this time? We usually don’t bring gasoline into the house, nor do we put it in such fragile packaging that can be easily broken. What common man doesn’t know not to put gasoline into a glass container? I think the concern for the new Mercury bulbs is because they could effect safety concerns in a more intimate environment. Very soon now, environmentalists will be asked to support off shore drilling and we shall see then how they view minuscule concerns.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
When I last checked, cigarette smoking was still legal in this country and you do bring it into the home where it affects everyone who breathes the air. Perhaps I should have used that as an example of a real toxin which is an everyday health hazard of massive proportions. Mercury in fluorescent bulbs? sub miniscule by comparison. Let’s work on the real problems.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course cigarette smoking is not an option, by law, in public buildings or businesses. Actually cigarette smoking is banned outdoors at many public events such as the 4th of July fireworks celebration at Lincoln Park, (remember the letter to the editor from the vet?), and of course the choice to bring it into the home would belong to the individual. With the new Mercury bulbs, there is no such choice because they are mandated to replace the old incandescent bulbs. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The original letter writer wrote: “This section in the constitution must be the same one that authorizes the government to tell employers how much they must pay their employees known as “minimum wage.” This, my friends, is fascism.”
For those of us who have studied political philosophy (not that fascism is at all a coherent one), one has to wonder where the lady obtained her
very own designer definiton. It certainly was not following much study or thought on the matter. Ergo, what she is using is a term which she does not understand, and therefore uses it strictly for emotional reasons. We see much of that these days, and it is certainly a clear indicator of the ‘dumbing of America’.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah facism has got to go. Since when should working people have laws that protect them? They should be grateful for any scraps thrown their way right?
Yeah, I know, we would all be on the road to wealth if that darn federal government would just go out of the way.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Maybe the letter writer was referring to the 19th Amendment.
But the Constitution is a dead document and worthless paper to a number of posters on this site.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Get a grip, Pat honey; our executive branch of government has met the classic definition of fascist since shortly after the idiot Bush was installed by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“But the Constitution is a dead document and worthless paper to a number of posters on this site.”
Mostly the ones who want to interpret it for themselves, rather than rely on the mechanism that has worked for over two hundred years. You know, Willis, the ones who think that majority rules?
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh Scott, I am so glad that you are here to answer a question.
The 9th Amendment:
” The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment:
” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States or to the People.”
Precisely where in the Constitution is the power to determine what type of light bulbs the People should be required by federal law to purchase.
Keep in mind little feller, that others are watching to see if you can make a fool of yourself again.
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
The Constitution says nothing about light bulbs. That you think it does only demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. That you think I think it does only demonstrates your ignorance about me.
You’re the one who has been trying to interpret the Constitution for yourself, so why stop now?
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
wlj…your sense of humor appears to know no bounds. Imagine, light bulbs and the 9th amendment. Who woulda thunk it! And the 10th, what a nice touch. Gimme me a break. When you get on I-70 do you even consider that this freaking government is telling you that you cannot drive over 75 mp? How gross and unfair….and such an infringement upon your right to drive any speed you want! And then there is the issue of wanting (demanding) that you wear those so-constricting seatbelts!). Face it, old man, some laws are actually for the common good. Try picking something really relevant and important for a forum focus.
Give the cheap seats a rest for a change.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 6:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott and Dabookie,
To accept mandates that are not under the enumerated powers makes us a social democracy where the constitution has no bearing other than a starting point to our slow grinding fall into communist dictatorship. Those of us who believe in a social democracy, despite its antithetical nature to the individual freedoms layed out by our constitution, demonstrate this by support of such unconstitutional mandates. Those democratic socialists amongst us believe that by proxy of our representatives we are going to decide exactly what kind of life will be allowed to live by the populace, regardless of what the individual believes and regardless of whether or not those actions not sanctioned actually violate the rights of other individuals. Social democracy believes that the government is going to save us from ourselves with well meaning laws. Social democracy is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers, other than Hamilton and a few other jackasses, wanted. The ninth and tenth amendments are attempting to clearly articulate the highly restricted bounds of the federal government…..obviously light bulb mandates are a violation, as are all federal mandates not enumerated by the constitution as powers of the federal government. The democratic socialists disembodying rhetoric of the endless reach of government has, from the very inception of our union, sought to put an end to individual right in favor of bestowing rights on the collective (of course favoring those in control of such a collective). Social democrats such as DaBookie and Scott may want to give extra thought to whether or not their should be any limitations on government at all, as they have yet to (in their very short statements) advocate for such limitations. FYI, speed limits are determined by our own state legislature, making them constitutionally sanctioned by way of the 9th and 10th.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 7:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Speed limits are also mandated federally in that if the states do not impose them, Federal money for highway improvements can be withheld.
And I wouldn’t be too quick to start classifying people based on those “very short statements.” Just because we acknowledge the Constitution doesn’t mention lightbulbs says nothing about our position on the subject.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 7:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh scott.
I asked a specific question, as well as laid out the exact place you needed to locate the answer.
” Oh Scott, I am so glad that you are here to answer a question.
The 9th Amendment:
” The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment:
” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States or to the People.”
Precisely where in the Constitution is the power to determine what type of light bulbs the People should be required by federal law to purchase.
Keep in mind little feller, that others are watching to see if you can make a fool of yourself again. ”
You answered with…
duh… well gee… duhhhhh….
” Willis,
The Constitution says nothing about light bulbs. That you think it does only demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. That you think I think it does only demonstrates your ignorance about me.
You’re the one who has been trying to interpret the Constitution for yourself, so why stop now? ”
Now, take a deep breath, try to clear the drug induced fog for a few moments, and READ my original question in it’s entirety, and explain Precisely where the federal government finds its power to mandate what type of light bulb, how much water a toilet can use, etc.
Or prove my opinion of your mental prowess to be correct again.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Your opinion of me means less than nothing, Willis. Trying to goad me into answering a question by casting doubt on my intelligence is meaningless. I’m past the third grade, where such taunts carry any weight. You might consider joining me.
I’m not a Constitutional scholar, adn I never claimed to be. I’m certainly not going to assume that the two amendments you included in your post are the only relevant ones. The level of your knowledge on these subjects has been proven inadequate too many times. I won’t even assume you got the number of the amendments right without checking them.
If the government mandates on light bulbs are unconstitutional, then all you have to do is file a lawsuit on that subject and convince the court that you’re right. It’s really quite simple. Trying to bully people on an internet discussion forum isn’t going to help your case. But perhaps that’s all you have…
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 7:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Speed limits, drinking age, air quality standards, light bulbs, etc. are all clear violations of the intention 10th Amendment. They pass constitutional muster because states are free to ignore them as long as they do not mind losing massive funding. The start of the loss of states’ rights goes back 145 years ago when the heavy hand of the government refused to allow some states to withdraw from the Union.
I have mixed views on this. I don’t think that Congress is bright or honest enough to do much good in most areas, but I have also seen the impact when things were not standardized. Gov’t safety standards for cars are not a bad thing (in my opinion). I like that fact that in all 50 states you drive on the right side of the road. Where I would rather have 220, I do like the fact that the voltage in outlets is consistent all over the country.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Congratulations scott, you have achieved the status of ‘little moron’ along wit classless, bobbie, damoron, and a few others.
YOU originally challenged me on this subject.
” Scott
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9:55 pm PM This User Report this comment
“But the Constitution is a dead document and worthless paper to a number of posters on this site.”
Mostly the ones who want to interpret it for themselves, rather than rely on the mechanism that has worked for over two hundred years. You know, Willis, the ones who think that majority rules? ”
I requested clarification from a known expert in all fields in which he chooses to inject his opinions….
You folded like a lawnchair and went crying back to mommy.
You lack of knowledge on the significance of the two quoted Amendments shows your total lack of knowledge of the Constitution.
Go read it sometime, it’s the basis for a good many discussions on this board and without a working knowledge of the underlying structure of this nation makes you woefully ignorant.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan, that “145 years ago” thing.
That was about the same time the phrase “THESE United States”, was altered to read “THE United States”.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Congratulations scott, you have achieved the status of ‘little moron’ along wit classless, bobbie, damoron, and a few others.”
Meaningless insults. Are you going to threaten to take away my lunch money next? Grow up Willis.
“YOU originally challenged me on this subject.
” Scott
“But the Constitution is a dead document and worthless paper to a number of posters on this site.”
Mostly the ones who want to interpret it for themselves, rather than rely on the mechanism that has worked for over two hundred years. You know, Willis, the ones who think that majority rules? ””
Referring to you (primarily), who have repeatedly expressed interpretations of the Constitution that differ wildly from the accepted interpretations, especially in the area of seperation of church and state. I was merely pointin out the irony in your statement. That it went completely over your head is no surprise to me.
“I requested clarification from a known expert in all fields in which he chooses to inject his opinions….”
I never claimed to be an expert. I was just referring to your earlier attempts to display your astounding lack of understanding of Constitutional issues.
“You folded like a lawnchair and went crying back to mommy.”
More insults. Yawn.
“You lack of knowledge on the significance of the two quoted Amendments shows your total lack of knowledge of the Constitution.”
Non-sequitor. The one does not follow from the other. I wasn’t even referring to the actual issue being discussed, only your tendency to rant about how you think it should be. I’m not an expert on these amendments, which is why I was not expressing an opinion on the subject, contrary to your claim about me. Thanks for playing, though.
“Go read it sometime, it’s the basis for a good many discussions on this board and without a working knowledge of the underlying structure of this nation makes you woefully ignorant.”
Pot. Kettle. You’re the one who didn’t know the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and you’re calling me ignorant? Full of irony today, aren’t we?
Come join the rest of us in adulthood, Willis. You seem to have a lot of opinions, some of which I happen to agree with, but your childish insults and ravings make it hard to take you seriously. Please don’t prove my opinion of your maturity level right.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dearest little moron.
” “You lack of knowledge on the significance of the two quoted Amendments shows your total lack of knowledge of the Constitution.”
Non-sequitor. The one does not follow from the other. I wasn’t even referring to the actual issue being discussed, only your tendency to rant about how you think it should be. I’m not an expert on these amendments, which is why I was not expressing an opinion on the subject, contrary to your claim about me. Thanks for playing, though. ”
So, you admit to having no knowledge of the issue under discussion, nor any basic knowledge of the Constitution, but you stuck your nose in and pretended to be intelligent?
Interesting…..
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
People like David Cox and WLJ who argue against what they call social democracy and for individual and states rights are simply making the same 160 year old discredited arguments of Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s opponent in the elections of 1858 and 1860. He argued for white supremacy and against Lincoln’s “House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand” position by pushing the right of the individual to decide for himself if he wanted to drive slaves and the rights of States to determine if they wished to be Slave states. After all the constitution of the time did not prevent slave holding!
Living in a civilized society imposes certain restrictions on absolute individual freedom as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted in his idea of the social contract centuries ago. Some aspects of a society require restrictions on the individual to live exactly as he wishes in order to achieve the greater good for society. Thus we have speed laws, insurance requirements for drivers, helmet laws, seat belt laws, gun laws, Food and drug laws, taxes for police and fire protection, and a whole host of other regualtions which are necessary to achieve a civilized society rather than a collection of anrchic individuals running rampant where the strongest survives. Those such as Cox and WLJ who argue against social Democracy are simply arguing against modern society and apparently wish to return to a Rousseau mythical primitive society free of laws. Even Jean Jacque Rosseau stated that there is a duty of all those who participate in society to obey that which is for the greater good of the state, thus eroding any notion of individual rights. So david Cox and WLJ-get your own island. Otherwise accept the social contract.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis apparently doesn’t know what “non-sequitor” means either.
You had your chance Willis. Go back to the playground. The grown-ups are talking.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor gene…
” Thus we have speed laws, insurance requirements for drivers, helmet laws, seat belt laws, gun laws, Food and drug laws, taxes for police and fire protection, and a whole host of other regualtions which are necessary to achieve a civilized society rather than a collection of anrchic individuals running rampant where the strongest survives. ”
These are LOCAL, ie; State or lower jurisdiction laws.
NOT federal as the federal government is limited by the above mentioned Amendments.
But, your knowledge of the Constitution is somewhat abbreviated due to your personal political philosophies, therefore somewhat lacking in HONESTY.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
little scottie,
” Scott
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 8:44 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis apparently doesn’t know what “non-sequitor” means either. ”
Yes little boy, I know what lots of other words mean too.
But I don’t use them in your presence because I don’t want to stunt your growth any more than sitting on genes knees has.
You will notice that we have given you a soft rubber playset in the back yard.
Enjoy little buddy.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey classof52?
Do you feel up to answering questions without resorting to sidestepping the issues yet?
Why are you so resistant to answering questions about your personal, political philosophies?
Did you run and hide when you were a college professor and a student asked about your politics?
Were you up front and honest then?
Did you have enough Integrity and Character then to stand proud and proclaim your beliefs to the world?
Are you still here because Norway probably will not accept your as an immigrant because of your political philosophies?
All good questions that you should not, as a MAN, have any problem answering Honestly for the dear readers who you hold in such high regard.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“little scottie,”
You just can’t help it, can you? You have to be demeaning and condescending. Too bad you’re failing so spectacularly.
“Yes little boy, I know what lots of other words mean too.”
Really? Then why did you completely ignore what I said and take the opposite meaning. Either you don’t know what it means you you simply ignore what people say to you. Not very grown-up. People might take you more seriously if you respond to what people actually say. It’s the adult thing to do.
“But I don’t use them in your presence because I don’t want to stunt your growth any more than sitting on genes knees has.
You will notice that we have given you a soft rubber playset in the back yard.
Enjoy little buddy.”
Yawn. When you come up with something to say that doesn’t start, end and consist entirely of insults, let me know. I don’t think you can do it, unless you’re copying and pasting from somewhere else.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now little scottie,
I asked specific questions about the powers denied to the federal government by the Constitution.
I even gave you all the information you would need to support your position, thereby destroying my position.
Your response was lacking in details and facts that were specifically called for in the question.
” I’m not a Constitutional scholar, adn I never claimed to be. I’m certainly not going to assume that the two amendments you included in your post are the only relevant ones. The level of your knowledge on these subjects has been proven inadequate too many times. I won’t even assume you got the number of the amendments right without checking them. ”
You know nothing of the Constitution, but are able to declare me to be unknowledgeable on the subject?
Your final sentence ” I won’t even assume you got the number of the amendments right without checking them. ” tells me that if you have never given a moments thought to the actual founding documents of this nation.
Scott, if you don’t know a subject, that is perfectly acceptable as long as you are willing to gain a working knowledge of the subject PRIOR to engaging another person on the subject.
You challenge me on a subject that you have admitted to knowing nothing about, then declared me wrong because I say things that make you cry.
Now, go quote me the relevant passages in the Constitution that enumerates the power to regulate light bulbs to the federal government.
Details Scott, not more of your childish rants.
PROVE my position wrong, or be a man and admit that you have made a mistake.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Can you really not see what I said? I never said I was an expert. It is documented that you were unaware of the Supreme Court’s power to interpret the Constitution. Your lack of knowledge on such a basic element calls into question your knowledge on the subject at hand. I don’t need to be an expert on the Constitution to understand this point. I do not feel qualified to render an opinion on the issue of State vs. Federal rights and restrictions, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN’T IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
My study of the Constitution has been primarily on the First Amendment issues. You see, Willis, it is possible to know a fair amount about one area of the Constitution and not much on anther area. It is not all or nothing/black and white as you apparently think. I do know enough about the First Amendment to know you don’t. I know enough about the powers of the respective branches of the government to know that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it. I don’t know enough about the 9th and 10th Amendments to give an opinion at this time. I have never said otherwise, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know when you’re wrong about a part of the Constitution I do know about.
Life is not black and white, Willis. There is lots of gray in between. Not knowing everything doesn’t mean you know nothing.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Do you feel up to answering questions without resorting to sidestepping the issues yet?”
Certainly. Just as soon as you answer a few about yourself. It is easy as pie. I provide the question and you just fill in the blanks:
I WLJ graduated from (name of college) in the year (year) and the name on my diploma was (name). See how easy that would be? And just think of all the pleasure that would give the one or two people who support your antediluvian political views to know that they actually had an educated man among them.
And your knowledge of laws is about as pathetic as your knowledge of our constitution. Unlike what you stated food and drug laws are Federal laws, not local. Wrong again (17th time) Willy.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, fair enough.
Now the original question:
” The 9th Amendment:
” The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment:
” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States or to the People.”
Precisely where in the Constitution is the power to determine what type of light bulbs the People should be required by federal law to purchase. ”
If you have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand, why did you feel the need to inject your lack of expertise into the conversation?
And, since you have continued to prove that you have no level of expertise in this area, why do you continue?
The supreme court does not have the power to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Only the power to determine whether or not any given law adheres to the Constitution.
Now you, and your little buddies can play semantics all day long, but that is fact.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
little buddy gene,
State the exact location of the enumeration of the power to regulate “food and drug” laws.
Otherwise it is another example of the federal government overstepping its Constitutionally enumerated powers.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dearest gene,
” Classof52
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am PM This User Report this comment
WLJ: “Do you feel up to answering questions without resorting to sidestepping the issues yet?”
Certainly. Just as soon as you answer a few about yourself. It is easy as pie. I provide the question and you just fill in the blanks:
I WLJ graduated from (name of college) in the year (year) and the name on my diploma was (name). See how easy that would be? And just think of all the pleasure that would give the one or two people who support your antediluvian political views to know that they actually had an educated man among them. ”
My educational status seems to be a real bother to you.
Why is that gene?
I have never bragged about my attending grate universities.
Nor have I ever claimed to be more intelligent, more informed, smarter, more gifted, etc than any other poster on this board.
That is in direct opposition to you and your little buddys postings.
However, you have labeled me as a dropout with no knowledge of educational achievements that I may, or may not possess.
You and your friends have continually talked down to, belittled, demeaned, and otherwise abused other posters to this site who hold differing views than you and your minions.
As to my ‘real name’, you have yet to prove that Willis Leon Johnson is NOT my real name.
And that really digs at you doesn’t it gene?
It’s like having bedbugs, it keeps you awake at nights, and causes many missed afternoon naps.
From my own personal point of view, having you think I am a dropout, and the fact that I keep backing you into corners where the only escape for you is to lie, or childishly ignore me by sticking your fingers in your eyes to keep from reading what I post, is way too rich a source of enjoyment for me to give it up.
My questions are specifically on your personal political views and not your educational background.
We can take a quick poll and see how many people are in the dark on my positions gene.
So, come on little buddy, suck it up, be a man and answer the questions truthfully and honestly if you can.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Scott, fair enough.”
See, you can start a post without an insult. I knew you could.
“Now the original question:
” The 9th Amendment:
” The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment:
” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States or to the People.”
Precisely where in the Constitution is the power to determine what type of light bulbs the People should be required by federal law to purchase. ”
And as I said before, I am not qualified at this time to render an opinion on this particular subject. Is this difficult to understand or something?
“If you have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand, why did you feel the need to inject your lack of expertise into the conversation?”
There is a difference between “no knowledge” and “not enough knowledge.” Besides, I was not “injecting” anything except the irony of your statement given your past history on the subject of the Constitution. That’s all I am commenting on.
“And, since you have continued to prove that you have no level of expertise in this area, why do you continue?”
What level of expertise is necessary to demonstrate that you are once again creating a strawman and beating it to death?
“The supreme court does not have the power to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Only the power to determine whether or not any given law adheres to the Constitution.”
What is the difference? How can they make that determination unless they interpret what the Constitution says? Did you even think about this before you posted it?
“Now you, and your little buddies can play semantics all day long, but that is fact.”
Seem to me that you’re the one who’s up to semantics. You’re claiming there’s a difference between deciding is something is Constitutional and interpreting the Constitution. Seems like the same thing to me.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Boy I wish this forum had a quote feature. It would sure make it easier to read some of these posts.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have thought so too Scott (though, would that really be a GOOD thing? ha ha)
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m dealing with a real live sandbox dropout.
Scott.
” My study of the Constitution has been primarily on the First Amendment issues. You see, Willis, it is possible to know a fair amount about one area of the Constitution and not much on anther area. ”
You see Scott, even just the First Amendment REQUIRES a good working knowledge of the ENTIRE BODY of the Constitution.
ALL the Amendments either modify, clarify, or restrict the federal government.
You cannot be an expert on any one Amendment without knowing the full body.
Constitutionally you and gene are illiterate and hove no value in furthering discussions.
You don’t even possess the acumen to discern the difference in my statement, ” “The supreme court does not have the power to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Only the power to determine whether or not any given law adheres to the Constitution.” ”
per your statement.
” What is the difference? How can they make that determination unless they interpret what the Constitution says? “
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I’m dealing with a real live sandbox dropout.”
Yawn. Here we go again. Well, starting one post without an insult set a new record for him. We’ll try again later.
“You see Scott, even just the First Amendment REQUIRES a good working knowledge of the ENTIRE BODY of the Constitution.”
And I have a good working knowledge of the Constitution. I just haven’t studied the 9th and 10th that much. Once again, it’s not all or nothing.
“ALL the Amendments either modify, clarify, or restrict the federal government.”
Exactly. And I have not studied how the 9th and 10th do so. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
“You cannot be an expert on any one Amendment without knowing the full body.”
Agreed. But you can be familiar with one Amendment and not others.
“Constitutionally you and gene are illiterate and hove no value in furthering discussions.”
You just keep telling yourself that, Willis. Someday, you might believe it.
“You don’t even possess the acumen to discern the difference in my statement, ” “The supreme court does not have the power to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Only the power to determine whether or not any given law adheres to the Constitution.” ”
per your statement.
” What is the difference? How can they make that determination unless they interpret what the Constitution says? “
And apparently you can’t either, which was my point. Thanks for agreeing.
Do you have anything of value to add to this conversation, or are you just going to continue throwing insults and lambasting me for something I didn’t do? I do have more important things to do, like straighten out the cables on my computer.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok Scott, one more try.
You don’t like being belittled, so here it all is, as one adult to another.
My question:
” The 9th Amendment:
” The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment:
” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States or to the People.”
Precisely where in the Constitution is the power to determine what type of light bulbs the People should be required by federal law to purchase. ”
Your comment on your knowledge of the body of the Constitution:
” And I have a good working knowledge of the Constitution. ”
The answer to my question is in the body of the Constitution.
A document you just claimed to have a working knowledge of.
Either you do indeed have a ‘working knowledge’ of the body of the Constitution, or you do not.
The number of any given Amendment is immaterial, IF you know the body of the document.
I await an intelligent answer to my question Scott.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I have given you an intelligent answer several times. Let me give it yet again.
While I have a working knowledge of the body of the Constitution, I have not studied the 9th and 10th Amendments in depth enough to give an informed opinion as to whether Federal rules on light bulbs are Constitutional or not. The issues I have been studying deal with the First Amendment, and have little or nothing to do with the 9th and 10th. Likewise, the light bulb issue has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment. I cannot give you an informed answer about this particular issue at this time. I did not give an opinion on this subject in the first place for precisely this reason.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer, but I appreciate the lack of insults in your last post.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Now that you admit that you do not have a working knowledge f the body of the Constitution.
I made a comment earlier that you responded to with this missive:
” Scott
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9:55 pm PM This User Report this comment
“But the Constitution is a dead document and worthless paper to a number of posters on this site.”
Mostly the ones who want to interpret it for themselves, rather than rely on the mechanism that has worked for over two hundred years. You know, Willis, the ones who think that majority rules? ”
In short, you had nothing to add to the conversation, but felt the need to inject your comments because you just felt the need?
Back to my position, in order for you to ‘interpret’ the First Amendment to your liking, you NEED a WORKING KNOWLEDGE of the Constitution, not just a sentence here and a phrase there.
Without a full knowledge of the entire body you cannot make an informed opinion of any single Amendment, unless it is your intention to form a false opinion.
I would suggest, in the future, if you are not up to speed on the subject under discussion, you act appropriately.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “My questions are specifically on your personal political views and not your educational background.”
My questions are specifically on your educational background and not on your personal political views (which are already well known-somewhere out there on the crazy fringe right).
And you have not even answered the easy questions such as: where in the constitution does one find the Federal food and drug laws? Since they are not there, should we repeal these and every law not specifically found in the Constitution?
And incidentally, when I need information on the U.S. Constitution I am not going to ask that self proclaimed expert, WLJ, who says he is smarter than everybody else on this forum and knows more about the Constitution even though he keeps getting proved wrong and never backs up a single opinion with evidence. I will ask someone like Irene May, Grand Junction native and retired professor of Constitutional law who writes good letters.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Now that you admit that you do not have a working knowledge f the body of the Constitution.”
here we go again. I admitted nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary, in fact.
“I made a comment earlier that you responded to with this missive:
‘Mostly the ones who want to interpret it for themselves, rather than rely on the mechanism that has worked for over two hundred years. You know, Willis, the ones who think that majority rules?’
In short, you had nothing to add to the conversation, but felt the need to inject your comments because you just felt the need?”
My comments had nothing to do with the subject being discussed. They were pointing out the irony in you complaining about those who interpret the Constitution differently than you do. You’re beating up that strawman again.
“Back to my position, in order for you to ‘interpret’ the First Amendment to your liking, you NEED a WORKING KNOWLEDGE of the Constitution, not just a sentence here and a phrase there.”
Then why did you only quote the 9th and 10th amendments? Double standard, anyone?
“Without a full knowledge of the entire body you cannot make an informed opinion of any single Amendment, unless it is your intention to form a false opinion.”
Hardly. You do not need to know how many Senators each state is entitled to to determine if an invocation violates the First Amendment. Nor do you need to know the age requirements for the office of President to determine if a federal law regarding light bulbs is Constitutional. The entire Constitution does not apply to every situation.
“I would suggest, in the future, if you are not up to speed on the subject under discussion, you act appropriately.”
Like you and your “understanding” of evolution? Take your own advice, Willis.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As you keep telling me Scott, you are not a Constitutional scholar, and I keep agreeing.
You are not a scholar, Constitutional or otherwise.
And, speaking of your favorite religion.
Even you finally admitted that evolution is not fact, merely a ‘best guess’ scenario.
” Hardly. You do not need to know how many Senators each state is entitled to to determine if an invocation violates the First Amendment. Nor do you need to know the age requirements for the office of President to determine if a federal law regarding light bulbs is Constitutional. The entire Constitution does not apply to every situation. ”
True, and to make any judgment on either the 9th or the 10th Amendments, YOU need to have a working knowledge of the relevant parts.
In order to know what the ‘relevant parts’ may be, you need to know the entire document.
But, as you keep telling us, you do not know the relevant portions under discussion.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little gene.
” My questions are specifically on your educational background and not on your personal political views ”
Please feel free to state your need to know.
I mean really gene, if you have a truly legitimate need to know I will be happy to provide that information to you through my attorney.
But, then you would be required to sign a non-disclosure statement and post a warranty bond to ensure your adherence to the terms of the non-disclosure agreement.
Fair enough old man?
Now, why is it that you refuse to answer the questions honestly?
What are you hiding that you do not want the other people to know about?
Why are you not living in Norway?
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“As you keep telling me Scott, you are not a Constitutional scholar, and I keep agreeing.
You are not a scholar, Constitutional or otherwise.”
Ooh, another insult. How would you know, Willis? You don’t know me, you don’t know my education in the slightest. You’re guessing, and trying to pass off that guess as a fact.
“And, speaking of your favorite religion.
Even you finally admitted that evolution is not fact, merely a ‘best guess’ scenario.”
“Finally admitted?” I never denied that. That’s how science works, you see. That you were surprised by this only shows how little you know about real science.
“True, and to make any judgment on either the 9th or the 10th Amendments, YOU need to have a working knowledge of the relevant parts.”
In order to know what the ‘relevant parts’ may be, you need to know the entire document.”
Well, I know I’m not familiar enough with the 9th and 10th Amendments, which according to you are relevant. What is your point? You’re stating the obvious and apparently think its a new revelation.
“But, as you keep telling us, you do not know the relevant portions under discussion.”
Meaning the 9th and 10th Amendments, correct. So what was your point again?
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hey scott…
” Ooh, another insult. How would you know, Willis? You don’t know me, you don’t know my education in the slightest. You’re guessing, and trying to pass off that guess as a fact. ”
Isn’t that the same thing yer little buddy gene keeps trying on me?
I can copy and paste some more scott, but you are wandering all around the ‘point’.
The point is you need a working knowledge of the body of the Constitution in oreder to know what parts are relevant to a discussion of any portion or amendment.
If you had a working knowledge, and were capable or reading the quoted 9th and 10th Amendments, you would have known where to locate the relevant portions in the body of the document.
The Amendments are not ’stand-alone’ documents, and refer to specific sections that a working knowledge would have included.
Why must I break it down, and explain it in such minute detail scott?
You want me to treat you as an intelligent adult, but constantly prove that you are not capable of understanding the simplest of concepts.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The point is you need a working knowledge of the body of the Constitution in oreder to know what parts are relevant to a discussion of any portion or amendment.”
I agree, and since I am not familiar enough with the 9th and 10th Amendments, I am not going to voice an opinion on this. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand.
“If you had a working knowledge, and were capable or reading the quoted 9th and 10th Amendments, you would have known where to locate the relevant portions in the body of the document.”
Which I don’t have access to at the moment.
“The Amendments are not ’stand-alone’ documents, and refer to specific sections that a working knowledge would have included.”
Are you under the impression that I have the whole thing memorized? I have a working knowledge of the Constitution, but I still need to refer to the whole thing for reference. I can’t do that right now.
“Why must I break it down, and explain it in such minute detail scott?
You want me to treat you as an intelligent adult, but constantly prove that you are not capable of understanding the simplest of concepts.”
Yawn. Come up with a new insult, at least, will ya?
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why sure scott, I will be happy to oblige you on this point.
I made a comment, not directed to, or concerning you.
You, even knowing in advance that you were totally ignorant of the subject matter decided to jump in and prove what an ignorant piece of garbage you truly are.
All of the messages we have traded back and forth merely cemented that opinion that you had nothing of value to add to the conversation.
But your very own, overbloated ego insisted that you jump in, and stay in for no other reason than a personal attack on me.
You are indeed a full blown member of the Bombastic Buffoon Brigade.
In other words little scottie, you have nothing of value.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I made a comment, not directed to, or concerning you.
You, even knowing in advance that you were totally ignorant of the subject matter decided to jump in and prove what an ignorant piece of garbage you truly are.”
That might be true if I had commented on the subject at hand. I didn’t, so your insult is meaningless. You keep missing this point.
“All of the messages we have traded back and forth merely cemented that opinion that you had nothing of value to add to the conversation.”
Which I said from the start. You, however, kept pressing me to put forth an opinion which we both agreed I was not qualified to offer. Who’s the idiot again?
“But your very own, overbloated ego insisted that you jump in, and stay in for no other reason than a personal attack on me.”
Willis, I don’t go looking for reasons to make personal attacks on you. I have far better things to do with my time than trade insults with someone as childish as you come across here. And besides, you have no room to talk, as many of your posts lately have started ouyt “dear little moron.” It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
“You are indeed a full blown member of the Bombastic Buffoon Brigade.”
Coming from you, that’s a compliment. I am proud to be included in the same ranks as Classof52 and RLaitres. I’m not sure I’m worthy, but thanks anyway.
“In other words little scottie, you have nothing of value.”
Not to someone as learning-phobic as you appear to be, I’m sure. You make it sound like a bad thing, though.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” My questions are specifically on your educational background and not on your personal political views ”
WLJ: “Please feel free to state your need to know.
I mean really gene, if you have a truly legitimate need to know I will be happy to provide that information to you through my attorney.
But, then you would be required to sign a non-disclosure statement and post a warranty bond to ensure your adherence to the terms of the non-disclosure agreement.”
As I suspected, the details of your educational accomplishments are so shameful that you do not want them widely known.
Well don’t feel too bad pipsqueak. If I had flunked out of CU and went on to Bob Jones “University” to finish up, I wouldn’t want that widely known either.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No gene, the details of my education are none of your business.
I did not ‘flunk out of CU’, although it is good to know that you have learned UC is NOT in Boulder, but CU is.
I never did attend Bob Jones, however I hear it is a GREAT University for intelligent people to attend, as opposed to the grate universuhty at mudville flats, indiana, where you attended.
Now, about those questions gene.
Seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “No gene, the details of my education are none of your business.”
Seriously, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE? (Oh did you already say that?)
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think the fact that Willis thinks BJU is a “GREAT” university speaks volumes.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor gene, I have stated in the past on this site why it is so “none of your business”.
I think it’s a reading comprehension.
As I said earlier today.
” I mean really gene, if you have a truly legitimate need to know I will be happy to provide that information to you through my attorney.
But, then you would be required to sign a non-disclosure statement and post a warranty bond to ensure your adherence to the terms of the non-disclosure agreement.” ”
Do you have a valid, legal reason to know the details of my education, or any other personal details of my life in general?
If so, please feel free to state them here publicly and I will have my attorney contact you.
Or, you could give it up gene.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, little scottie, if you don’t care for that particular institution of higher learning, I will take that as an endorsement for it’s greatness.
Posted July 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Institute of higher learning?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Bob Jones University.
Posted July 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Libertarianism isn’t worth a bucket of warm pee. Ayn Rand was a nut anyway. Mob rule and absolute self-interest are a recipe for disaster. Why is it that GJ and other towns are such a magnet for these clowns?
Posted July 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oops typo! that should read ” …GJ and other similar sized towns…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.