Poor in the South, may have to choose between heating and eating. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 07, 2024, 07:22:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Poor in the South, may have to choose between heating and eating. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Poor in the South, may have to choose between heating and eating.  (Read 1878 times)
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« on: November 26, 2005, 03:10:08 PM »

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

Only in the mountains and the outer South. If you're in Florida or Louisiana, it won't be so cold. In Tennessee or Virginia, it might be.

And if you live in the mountains you probably know how to beat the cold in winter.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2005, 04:31:11 PM »

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

And you were just arguing in the video game thread that states have a constitutional right to violate the First Amendment.

1. The general welfare clause isn't a blank check to do anything that isn't forbidden - the means by which the federal government may protect the general welfare is enumerated within the constitution, and is limited to those powers.

2. See the bolded word in Emsworth's quote above.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2005, 01:46:04 PM »

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

And you were just arguing in the video game thread that states have a constitutional right to violate the First Amendment.

1. The general welfare clause isn't a blank check to do anything that isn't forbidden - the means by which the federal government may protect the general welfare is enumerated within the constitution, and is limited to those powers.

2. See the bolded word in Emsworth's quote above.

The federal government explicitly gives corporations a lot of power, through the Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific SCOTUS ruling, which claims that the 14th amendment somehow gives corporate personage. It's a very activist ruling, and anyone against activist judges and activist rulings should be against Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific.

Since Emsworth has already responded to the content, that just leaves this to be asked - what, if ANYTHING, does that have to do with what I said regarding the general welfare clause?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 11 queries.