Changed it, even though it apparently wasn't broken.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ideology: Australian Liberalism
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
Random American wrote:There are ways to encourage states to do it, like how the federal government encouraged states to raise the drinking age to 21.
Doug64 wrote:Yes, and I’m opposed to that abuse of Congress’s tax and spend authority as well. IMHO, if Congress isn’t authorized to regulate something it isn’t authorized to spend money on it, either.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Random American wrote:Well, I don't agree. Plus, we had a political party that was for public infrastructure spending, called the Federalist Party. Congress' power isn't a limited as you think it is.
I would consider this part of protecting the "general welfare" of the United States, so I do think congress does have the sweeping powers to do this.
Doug64 wrote:Yes, such Federalists as Hamilton argued for an expansive interpretation of the General Welfare clause, despite the fact that a clause authorizing spending on internal improvements was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson and Madison broke away from the Federalist Party in part because of opposition to that expansive interpretation, and we all know how that contest turned out. in his 1806 State of the Union address Jefferson called for a constitutional amendment to permit spending on internal improvements, but Congress ignored him.
From the Articles of Confederation: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled ..." Do you believe anyone at the time thought the Continental Congress was authorized by that to incur expenses for anything that it believed to be of benefit to the united States, or only for those areas that it was authorized to act by the Articles? There's another problem with placing the Congress's spending authority in the General Welfare clause--if that's the case, the only funds Congress is authorized to spend are those raised through "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." Where is Congress authorized to spend funds raised by borrowing (I.8.2) or the sale of lands? Better to look to the Necessary and Proper and Territories clauses, in which case the "common Defence and general Welfare" clause properly becomes the limitation it should be rather than a blanket permission that renders many of the rest of the enumerated powers pretty much superfluous.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah things are looking great for Trump right now lol. I'm sure the dumbest people on these forums, Trump supporters, scrying the bones trying to explain the inevitable victory are 1) extremely confident and 2) extremely competent.
SpecialOlympian wrote:You literally justified not counting votes because your fucked up slavery to your ideology defined counting things as subjective no less than 24 hours ago.
Random American wrote:I just read that article, and I don't see that restriction.
Plus, the Articles of Confederation were ditched because they were too weak, which is why we have the current constitution to begin with. The necessary and proper clause gives congress more power (which is why anti-federalists opposed it), not less, just like the line about the general welfare. It's a list of powers granted by Section 8. Congress can tax to promote the general welfare, and borrow money. The constitution grants a lot more power to the government than the articles did.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript
All of these grant Congress power. Necessary and Proper gives Congress the power to act even in ways that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution. This does not dispute my interpretation of the "general welfare" line.
A new Telemundo poll paints a dangerous picture for Joseph R. Biden’s presidential campaign in Florida as it pertains to Hispanic voters.
The Sunshine State’s 29 electoral votes went to then-GOP nominee Donald Trump in 2016 despite 62% of Hispanic voters supporting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Biden’s campaign holds a 51% to 47% lead over Mr. Trump in Telemundo’s poll, which was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy and has a 4.5% margin of error in either direction.
Brad Coker, one of Mason-Dixon’s pollsters, told Politico that Democrats are in a dire situation if the numbers are accurate.
“If Biden is going to flip Florida, he has to at least match Clinton’s numbers among Hispanics and that looks like it’s not going to happen,” Mr. Coker said Thursday. “Even if he were to pull most of the undecided vote still out there, Trump is going to do better this time than he did last time.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign has made consistent efforts to woo Florida’s Hispanics, particularly those with Cuban and Venezuelan roots.
The Republican’s campaign even hosted a “Fighters Against Socialism” bus tour featuring UFC fighter Jorge Masvidal.
“Fighting is easy and comes natural for me just like fighting communism and dictatorships comes easy and natural for patriots #thereelection,” the MMA fighter tweeted Wednesday.
Mr. Masvidal’s father risked his life fleeing Cuba on a raft in his 20s before arriving in the U.S. in 1971.
Democrats’ allies are boosting third-party conservatives in U.S. Senate contests in states such as Kentucky and South Carolina in a last-ditch effort to siphon support from Republican candidates.
The meddling includes ads urging people to take a look at the Constitution Party’s Bill Bledsoe, who dropped out of the South Carolina race a month ago and endorsed Sen. Lindsey Graham.
But Mr. Bledsoe’s decision to drop out came too late to get his name off the ballot.
Mr. Graham’s campaign released a pair of ads on Thursday criticizing Jaime Harrison, his Democratic opponent, for promoting Mr. Bledsoe.
“This is Dr. Bill Bledsoe. I’ll be voting for Sen. Graham and I hope you will too,” the former candidate says in a 60-second radio ad.
Earlier this week, Mr. Bledsoe called on Mr. Harrison and other groups to “cease and desist.”
Mr. Graham and Mr. Harrison have been running neck-and-neck in recent polling in the typically red state.
The Harrison campaign did not respond to a request for comment but has previously defended their efforts.
Harrison campaign spokesman Guy King told the Associated Press earlier this month that the campaign was simply “making sure voters know the facts” about Mr. Harrison’s “two opponents on the ballot.”
The anti-Trump Lincoln Project also released a new ad this week touting Mr. Bledsoe as the only candidate South Carolina conservatives can trust.
“Dr. Bill Bledsoe is the real deal: tough on immigration, pro-guns, pro-God,” a narrator says with a slight southern drawl. “He’ll put ‘Christ’ back in ‘Christmas.’”
The group said in a statement Thursday it’s not backing down and that the Washington establishment is trying to “gaslight” Republicans into believing Mr. Graham is a conservative.
“The Lincoln Project will never cease or desist from our unfailing belief that Bill Bledsoe is the only true conservative in the South Carolina Senate race this election cycle,” the statement said.
In Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be on his way to a relatively drama-free win over Democrat Amy McGrath in a race national Democrats were bullish on earlier in the cycle.
That hasn’t stopped outside groups from trying to boost Libertarian candidate Brad Barron in hopes of steering would-be McConnell voters away from the Republican.
The pro-McGrath “Fire Mitch, Save America” PAC is responsible for recent mailers saying that there is a “better choice” for U.S. Senate in Mr. Barron.
“Brad Barron will eliminate the IRS, audit the Federal Reserve, and bring our troops home,” the mailer says. “He will shake up Washington.”
A spokesman for Senate Republicans’ campaign arm said the moves smack of desperation.
“This is a last-ditch, desperate effort by these out-of-touch Democrats and their allies to meddle in these elections,” said Nathan Brand, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “But at the end of the day, voters know that Harrison and McGrath don’t share their values, and these dirty tricks are just another reminder why.”
In the presidential race, virtually all of the attention has been on President Trump and Joseph R. Biden, with Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen and Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins struggling to break through.
But White House adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner has acknowledged talking with rapper Kanye West, whose odd “Birthday Party” White House bid was thought to potentially draw some Black support away from Mr. Biden.
Some operatives working to get Mr. West’s name on the ballot in various states have ties to Republicans or GOP causes.
Mr. Trump denied any part in helping Mr. West, whose wife Kim Kardashian West has praised the president’s efforts on criminal justice reform, get on the ballot.
“Not at all,” Mr. Trump said in August. “I like him. I like his wife.”
colliric wrote:I just plain don't believe in endless recounts. I have worked as an Election worker here many times here in Australia, and we have three counts(referred to as "scrutinees" in this document) as standard in every election:
https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/candid ... policy.pdf
Formal Recounts are difficult to obtain here as a result, and they take a shitload of time and cost taxpayers more money. They often end up being a waste of time anyway.
What makes you believe it is any different? The[…]
And China is a major, important country in the wo[…]
You've done nothing except talk down to me. I to[…]
Well this is conjecture and I suspect not even cl[…]