Quotes
Search
Essentials Popular Topics
My Favorite Forums Join Discuss to setup a list of your favorite forums.
Err on the side of safety? How about....
EagleTed 05-15-2008, 8:07 AM | Post #2518022 |  19 Replies
0  

Erring on the side of the constitution?

Big Government Dems, led by Markey Mouse of MA, want to "close the loophole" and put the Feds in charge of stationary amusement parks. A long line of victims are expected to appear on a boob tube near you in order to create bigger federal government.

Problem is, what constitutional basis do they have? Mobile fairs and rides are regulated by the feds, as they cross state lines and are therefore subject to the interstate trade provision of the constitution (the commerce clause). There is no such authority in the constitution for local and state stationary parks. That so-called "loophole" is the constitution.

Besides, ask yourself if you've ever been to a fair, where do you feel safer? Traveling fairs or local amusement parks? Which is safer? So why exactly do Big Government Dems insist on ever expanding the Federal Government?

 

Related Topics
Page 2 of 2 | < Previous 1 2
Re: Err on the side of safety? How about....
EagleTed 05-16-2008, 4:32 AM | Post #2518403
0  

Obviously, you've got your special interest agenda. Not defending the constitution, merely assaulting any perception of traditional values.

 

Related Topics
Re: Err on the side of safety? How about....
MyraL 05-16-2008, 12:30 PM | Post #2518562
0  
EagleTed:

Obviously, you've got your special interest agenda. Not defending the constitution, merely assaulting any perception of traditional values.

 

Ted, I don't appreciate gratuitous attacks.

Having demonstrated that the right is driven by lust to control others at least as much as the left, I return to your original post.

If your outline is complete and correct, the DEMs have no leg to stand on. The "interstate commerce" clause clearly wouldn't apply. However, I sympathize with the safety concern, particularly in view of a horrible disaster a few years ago.

At your leisure, I'd like an insult-free Constitutional discussion with you, particularly of the 9th & 10th Amendments. Be aware that my time is limited.

In the meantime, how are you "defending the Constitution?" What cases have you filed?

What speeches have you given? What groups do you belong to? Is there anything other than clobbering people on message boards?

Myra 

 

 

Related Topics
Re: Err on the side of safety? How about....
EagleTed 05-16-2008, 5:07 PM | Post #2518641
0  
And I don't appreciate you taking this discussion on a tangent, into matters which had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Re: Err on the side of safety? How about....
MyraL 05-16-2008, 5:34 PM | Post #2518662
0  

Ted, the best cure for that is NOT to give a reply-- especially an involved one.

Myra 

Top
Page 2 of 2 | < Previous 1 2
 
© Copyright 2008 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved. Please read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Quotes for NASDAQ are 15 minutes delayed. All other exchanges are delayed 20 minutes.