"The Federal Gov. has the moral obligation to act on failing economies if it has the capacity to do so. The fact that the Constitution may not specify that it must act, doesn't render such acts as unconstitutional, and thus does not defy the vision of our 'founding fathers'." That is classic! You continuously want other posters to cite references which many times they do, and then you pull from thin air this moral obligation criteria. You are very misguided in that the constitution is very clear that the federal government does not have the power to do what is not granted; there is no mention of moral exceptions. If there is sufficient enough need,the framers did provide ways to make changes.
I am done with replying to your posts. You have not responded in an intellectually honest manner, you are rude and condescending to others with well thought out posts and you do not honor your own standards for provision of documentation or examples. You sound like an arm waving regurgitation machine for the democratic socialists incapable of accepting that you might be incorrect or biased.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and one must take the situation as a whole and not conveniently cherry pick isolated items. If we're going to allow that then we must also allow that since the introduction of fiat everything financially related to it has also been a fraud.... because "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." ~ 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8
You're absolutely right. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was an egregious abridgement, i.e., a gross infringement, on the rights of Americans.
But once they broke the ice (and there was no rebellion) they felt as though they could steadily infringe.
Since the Constitution specifically intended not to provide for a standing army, it is the people themselves that are to be the Home Guard. That said, they should have as such weaponry and of the capability of any standing army. Standing armies always portend the use by tyrants and American history bears that out.
When a country is invaded, the militia are ready to appear in its defense; they march into the field with that fortitude which a consciousness of the justice of their cause inspires; they do not jeopardize their lives for a master who considers them only as the instruments of his ambition, and whom they regard only as the daily dispenser of the scanty pittance of bread and water. No, they fight for their houses, their lands, for their wives, their children, for all who claim the tenderest names, and are held dearest in their hearts, they fight …for their liberty, and for themselves, and for their God…” ~ John Hancock
"...assigning correct labels is not name calling. ..."
Indeed it is, especially when unaccompanied with reasons. You reply to posts solely with name calling without also stating what and why you are in disagreement. This implies that your reasons either lack rationality or are unacceptable to most. Accordingly these are our reasons to call you a JERK. The difference is that your use of the word "loony" to most everything you disagree with is without meaning.
Again you chose not to respond to the question because the answer confirms your status as a looney tune.
p.s. assigning correct labels is not name calling.
"...replace it with... "
Thats the conspiracy theory.
Remember Einstein once said, ""Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
You chose to answer a question with a question; again it is obvious you’re afraid to proffer an opinion, lest your stance become evident and opposed by the majority of people here and elsewhere.
Also, you chose to eliminate part of our statement, “...currently non-binding” and replace it with “... non-binding...” You’re really a piece of work, and fool no one.
Remember the ex-president who said, “Read my lips, no new taxes”? It’s the same set of lies meant to mask future objectives.
YOU CHOOSE TO ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION, AGAIN IT IS OBVIOUS YOU ARE AFRAID TO PROFFER AN OPINION, LEST YOUR STANCE BECOME EVIDENT AND OPPOSED BY THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE.
Silver miners on a number of occasions found fault with how the Feds were handling the issue of “legal tender” that spawned political parties, and how money was defined by Alexander Hamilton, a Rothschild agent. Enough history has passed that it is obvious what Hamilton’s objective was by what currently exists. We challenge anyone to look at the coins in their pockets and then to consider what the US Constitution states should be there. This is typical, not only of how the Rothschild’s operated, but how all counterfeit fiat currencies were brought into existence with what those engaged in evaluating the historical record state was an average lifespan of 30 years. Just because our currencies have survived since at least the FDR Administration does not invalidate the claim that the dollar and fiat currencies will become worthless worldwide as “money” becomes totally digital.
Legal tender laws and the issuance of “money” were not the business of the Feds. We would be better off without them. As said, for the umpteenth time, put in place by the Federal Reserve Act was the power by a small group of unelected banksters to steer the nation as they chose, including provisions to control politics, education, the mainstream media and other societal controls. Personal responsibility for outcomes, be it by using a bimetallic standard or a gold standard, is far better than the paper currency (FRN’s) we are saddled with that has lost 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve Act. At most central governments could be charged with certification of mediums of exchange, regardless of their origins. The Coinage Act of 1792 could be brought out of limbo to discourage counterfeiting, which should have been used long ago to stem the tide of what passes for “money” in this country.
The Federal Gov. has the moral obligation to act on failing economies if it has the capacity to do so. The fact that the Constitution may not specify that it must act, doesn't render such acts as unconstitutional, and thus does not defy the vision of our 'founding fathers'.
I never used the word 'economy' in my reference, you added it. W/O going back and looking up the exact constitutional reference, it is quite clear powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the citizens and the states. Managing the economy is not specifically delegated to the federal government, therefore it is none of their business. Managing this country in the manner envisioned by the founders did not include the federal government managing the economy or it would have been included in the constitution.
"If anything there needs to be equivalency on the part of those threatened with death without due process."
How would you fulfill this need?
It is obvious from your reply that you would be in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.
“...The Constitution is likely not to include instructions for the Federal Gov. to act on some modern entities that it has the moral obligation to act upon....like automatic guns, ...”
Maybe you would like to explain how the people of Nawsi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, and a host of other similar countries could protect themselves from tyrannical governments. However, based on your many other replies, you probably would consider that a “conspiracy” theory you don’t wish to engage in.
The People’s right to defend themselves is sacrosanct. Guns solely allowed as game hunting weapons were NOT the intention of the 2nd Amendment, especially where governments now use armed drones by operatives sitting behind computer screens to take out “enemies” designated for elimination. If anything there needs to be equivalency on the part of those threatened with death without due process. These laws were written into our US Constitution that became the law of the land in 1787, which you also apparently have a problem with due to the passage of time.
There were other issues you raised in your reply, but this sufficiently displays your mindset.
Credit default swap (CDS) contract transactions between private parties were free from government interference until 2009. I'm pretty sure 2009 occurred less than 70 years ago.
Hog wash. How can something we haven't had in over 70 years be the cause of the GFC? What the hell is your game? You obviously don't know your butt from third base. I'm on the verge of tuning you out. You spew far too much mind manure.
"I did not call for the management of this Country's economy based on that experienced in 1776." Yes, you did. "What really needs to be done is for the politicians to get the courage to manage this country in the manner envisioned by our founders." No words switched.
The Constitution is likely not to include instructions for the Federal Gov. to act on some modern entities that it has the moral obligation to act upon....like automatic guns, the economy etc.
Since you haven't provided evidence that the Founding Fathers knew of our modern ammunitions and economic management through fiscal policy, taxes, spending of resources, and monetary policy and regulation, 240 years down the track, the continuation of your notion remains nonsensical.