[K-Stater]

again, no. the point of the constitution is to expressly limit the powers granted to the common government. if they had no right expressly delegated to them to confiscate people’s property, then they had no such right

I might agree with that if you can point to where the words 'expressed' or 'expressly' are to be found in the Constitution.

and of course dred scott was a constitutionally-accurate ruling, if that’s what you mean by “good”

And what part of the Constitution supports the idea that the states determine who can or cannot be a U.S. citizen? Or which supports Taney's conclusion that blacks are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect?"

got it?

Oh yeah.

[phi11yguy19]

oh, what a breakthrough! you "may agree" with me...

except that since i never "quoted" the words your asking me to identify as having quoted, i miss the point. are you saying the document cannot be explained without also using the exact words used in it? Maybe you should tell the Senate that, hawk-eye, since they explain the 10th Amendment on senate.gov...

The federal government is the recipient of constitutionally delegated powers. What is not delegated remains in the states or in the people.

...and I'm POSITIVE "recipient" and "constitutionally" aren't in there! WHOA, our government doesn't even know as much as you!

When you look up "dumb" in a dictionary, do expect it to be defined as "dumb"?

[mojitojoe]

Bye bye, Non-Sequitur #3.... that's 3 zots,(that we know of) 1 original, 2 re-treads. You seriously underestimate the ability of JR and mods to sniff out liberal trolls and retreads.