YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Sure about that one? 617346[/snapback] Just like where does the federal government have the right to tax...article one, section 8, don't have it in front of me right now, but it says something like the ability to levee such funds as necessary to provide for common defense and other purposes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 When it comes to the Constitution I admit that there are very few things I feel sure about. It's a matter of interpretation and in the example I used, I don't think it would be an unreasonable interpretation either way. Common sense dictates that a US army be under federal control but it's debatable whether the section you quoted actually delegates that power to the US (i.e. "when called into the actual Service of the United States") and if it doesn't then that power is theoretically reserved to the states.618142[/snapback] Actually, I think that phrase "when called into action..." specifically refers to state militias. The phrasing preceding that says quite simply: the President commands the US Army and Navy, period. But like you said, it's an interpretation. Specifically in this case, it's an interpretation of a comma. And it's also interesting to note that, according to the strict constructionist view of the Constitution, no one commands the Air Force... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 And it's also interesting to note that, according to the strict constructionist view of the Constitution, no one commands the Air Force... 618172[/snapback] Well to be fair, who would want to? Common Man, a bunch of prima-donnas dessed in Smurf Suits... If you were in command of that "Outfit" would you admit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Well to be fair, who would want to? Common Man, a bunch of prima-donnas dessed in Smurf Suits... If you were in command of that "Outfit" would you admit it? 618196[/snapback] Says the guy who wore his name on his ass and ate an olive out of aa fat guy's belly. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 There seems to be some confusion on the "moderation" aspect I spoke of in my post. They party would not be changing their core beliefs. What they are changing is how it is presented to the public (of course, this could lead to confusion as well). Let me give you an example of what this group is trying to do. This is a hypothetical example. Reduction in the size of government: Libertarians want to strip federal government down to Constitutionally mandated functions. If you run on a platform of major cuts in government, you will lose. People will be scared that you are cutting too much, too fast. What this splinter group wants to do is come up with realistic ways to cut the government. In a 4-year term, it is possible to cut, say, 5% of the total government budget. This is what you run on: a 5% cut in government spending. Then the candidate discusses how they plan to cut 5% of the federal government budget, showing small decreases in a variety of areas. No major cuts, just “tweeks” here and there. This is the moderate approach this group wants to focus on with their candidates. Realistic goals that can be accomplished in a term or two. Do not focus on the end goals (which would take generations to accomplish). Just focus on what can be realistically accomplished in a short amount of time. This shows a more moderate approach to governing that people can agree with, while not abandoning the candidates core beliefs. This will make the party more attractive to moderates, while still working towards the goals of the extremists. In order to accomplish this, the party platform (and possibly the constitution and bylaws) will need to be changed. This group is currently working on platform revisions to be proposed at the next convention (July). If the platform changes are not accepted, then the group will break off of the party and form their own party. They currently see the Libertarian Party on a road to destruction. This is their attempt to make the party viable in the future. 617325[/snapback] Where is the convention this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Where is the convention this year? 618994[/snapback] Ken's basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Mayor Nagin is NOT being propped up as a good leader by the media, as far as I can tell. Only has to appear that way to a few people. That's why he is campaigning for re-election in Houston, drumming up fears that white people might get elected to office in NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Where is the convention this year? 618994[/snapback] I think it is in Portland, OR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Mayor Nagin is NOT being propped up as a good leader by the media, as far as I can tell. Only has to appear that way to a few people. That's why he is campaigning for re-election in Houston, drumming up fears that white people might get elected to office in NO. 619001[/snapback] They're not white. There the other chocolate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts