The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit

randybarnett.com ^ | 6/9/05 | Randy Barnett

[robertpaulsen]

"We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo."

We have a legal embargo. We're not at war. You are in error to say that we must be at war in order to ban commerce with foreign nations.

[P_A_I]

We aren't at war with Cuba either. Yet we have an arguably legal embargo.

-- As usual, you want to nitpick over details while you ignore the Constitutional issues.

Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?

We have a(n) [arguably] legal embargo. We're not at war.

Exactly what I wrote just above.

You are in error to say that we must be at war in order to ban commerce with foreign nations.

You really are amusing paulsen, as you dance around nitpicking these issues. -- Admit it, you love all prohibitions. Even those on guns.

[robertpaulsen]

"nitpicking these issues"

Nitpicking? It's the subject of the article, doofus.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen nitpicks:

It's [banning commerce with foreign nations] the subject of the article, doofus

The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit is the subject, not your doofy diversions.

[inquest]

Look, if you can't stand the heat of posting, - and replies, - get out of the kitchen.

Odd advice, coming from someone who has no business being in the "kitchen" in the first place.

Mr. Robinson, Mr. Moderator, I'd like to request that you look over the posting history of this "P_A_I" clown. You'll find that his posting style has a very familiar ring to it. Yup, he's back, and he's back to the same juvenile antics that led to his banning before, and it's really starting to get boring again.

[agitator]

yep

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[P_A_I]

Good grief, now you've really proved how childish you've become.

Whatta man.

[agitator]

Read this if you're interested in the subject of licensing. I'm not holding my breath, 1 out of 1000 has the attention span required.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

I'm too busy to argue with self-appointed experts talking through their hats.

[agitator]

See this link, you might find it interesting.

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

Then again, maybe not :)

[P_A_I]

I read it all years ago agitator. Well reasoned good stuff.
We agree on Constitutional principles, fer sure.

Thanks & regards. - See you next time.

[P_A_I]

Posted by inquest to P_A_I; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator

On News/Activism ^ 06/10/2005 7:36:23 AM PDT · 45 of 50 ^

Look, if you can't stand the heat of posting, - and replies, - get out of the kitchen.
Odd advice, coming from someone who has no business being in the "kitchen" in the first place.

Mr. Robinson, Mr. Moderator, I'd like to request that you look over the posting history of this "P_A_I" clown.
You'll find that his posting style has a very familiar ring to it.
Yup, he's back, and he's back to the same juvenile antics that led to his banning before, and it's really starting to get boring again


______________________________________


Yup, we're back to the same old juvenile antics.. When you can't prevail in your argument, disrupt the tread, provoke a meaningless flame war, and see if you can get your opponent banned.

This is indeed getting boring. To bad that FR can't break the cycle by instituting some sort of 'Bozo Button'.
-- Just imagine, if inquest could bozo me, he would no longer be forced to reply to my threads or the ideas expressed in them. -- If he then insisted on doing so anyway, -- Mods could just save him from himself, and bozo me from his view, & vice versa.

-- I'd bet that within days of enforcing such a plan, complaints to Moderators would virtually cease, as even bozos would realize that it is no fun arguing the issues with yourself.

[inquest]

When you can't prevail in your argument...

There was scarcely anything for me to prevail against. You claimed Madison was saying the exact opposite of what he was saying. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the entire letter to you, when all anyone has to do is read it over at the link I provided. Trying to walk you through it would be absolutely no more productive than trying to explain that 1+1=2 to someone who refuses to believe it.

To bad that FR can't break the cycle by instituting some sort of 'Bozo Button'.

That is actually an excellent suggestion; I'm surprised you had it in you. And if you were around long enough to see it implemented, you would indeed find out how pointless it is to wind up talking to yourself.

[Bernard]

Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

So, to a strict Constitutionalist, who believes that the government only has powers specifically granted in the Constitution, it is not constitutional to have an air force?

[inquest]

You might want to look at Article IV, Section 4.

[tpaine]

bump

[tpaine]

yearly bump.

[OneWingedShark]

So, to a strict Constitutionalist, who believes that the government only has powers specifically granted in the Constitution, it is not constitutional to have an air force?

No, it is not; we could have an Army Air Corp... but there's nothing authorizing an Air Force either.