Drug test for welfare recipients

[rebelcowboysnb]

Thats the way the rest of the government works. If we dont like what they do we can replace them. Currently the SCOTUS is untouchable an also not elected. Its the only branch of the government that does not have to answer to anyone. I think "we the people" should be able to make them accountable.


An I think them saying that the fed can run over a states rights because something might cross a state line someday is something they need to be accountable for.

That ruling means that because the FDA regulates interstate commerce of food eggs they can come to your home an charge you with a federal crime for having back yard chickens without you ever breaking a single law. All because your eggs may one day cross a state.

 

[wbmom09]

There absolutely needs to be testing for those on welfare! There are too many people out there that abuse the system. Many people do not have a need for welfare but see it as free money to use on whatever they want, mainly drugs. It's a real shame because not all people on welfare are bad, they truely need the help but it's those people who take advantage of the system who ruin it for everyone else. If someone comes up hot on a pee test, then their supplement should be revoked until their clean and sober and can prove it by peeing in a cup. There's nothing wrong with being an honost person and getting what you deserve.

 

[Me & My Peeps]

Really? Gun Permits are "Unconstitutional"? Please educate me and spell out EXACTLY, what line or phrase of the U.S constitution.........that says permits\ownership is wrong? Please? I await your colorful & studious enlightenment!

 

[hemet dennis]

Thats the way the rest of the government works. If we dont like what they do we can replace them. Currently the SCOTUS is untouchable an also not elected. Its the only branch of the government that does not have to answer to anyone. I think "we the people" should be able to make them accountable.


An I think them saying that the fed can run over a states rights because something might cross a state line someday is something they need to be accountable for.

That ruling means that because the FDA regulates interstate commerce of food eggs they can come to your home an charge you with a federal crime for having back yard chickens without you ever breaking a single law. All because your eggs may one day cross a state.

Are they not elected by the Senate ?
Did the creators of the constitution not want them accountable to anyone ?
Should they not interpret the constitution or should they rule with what's popular ?
I think that's how congress decides how to vote.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Really? Gun Permits are "Unconstitutional"? Please educate me and spell out EXACTLY, what line or phrase of the U.S constitution.........that says permits\ownership is wrong? Please? I await your colorful & studious enlightenment!

"Shall not be infringed"

Would it be constitutional to require you to have to spend $500 on special classes then charge you another $200 to do a background check before they will give you a license to go to church.

Or to vote, or speak.

FYI Gun permits were Jim Crow laws. They started to help keep blacks from being able to defend them selves from the Klan an other groups. Before the Jim Crow laws everyone could own a carry guns. Which was what the 2nd amendment was meant to help keep.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote: There actually appointed for life by the president. The Senate can refuse a appointment but the president is the only one that gets to choose who gets appointed.

The SCOTUS was not suppose to be accountable. But they were also not supposed to be able to write laws. Only interpret them. But now the term "legislate from the bench" has become common. This is where they say , yes the law says X is ok but we are going to add Y to it. Now Y is law without going threw the normal channels. Congress can reword the X law to make it clear that Y is not law but SCOTUS has the final say no matter what an can put it back in.

Also to make or remove laws it takes 51% of congress, 51% of the Senate an the OK of the President. An its way harder to amend the Constitution. But when the SCOTUS "legislates from the bench" they can change the meaning of any law or even the constitution with just a 50% vote.

 

[hemet dennis]

There actually appointed for life by the president. The Senate can refuse a appointment but the president is the only one that gets to choose who gets appointed.

The SCOTUS was not suppose to be accountable. But they were also not supposed to be able to write laws. Only interpret them. But now the term "legislate from the bench" has become common. This is where they say , yes the law says X is ok but we are going to add Y to it. Now Y is law without going threw the normal channels. Congress can reword the X law to make it clear that Y is not law but SCOTUS has the final say no matter what an can put it back in.

Also to make or remove laws it takes 51% of congress, 51% of the Senate an the OK of the President. An its way harder to amend the Constitution. But when the SCOTUS "legislates from the bench" they can change the meaning of any law or even the constitution with just a 50% vote.

Well the Senate does vote on each appointment so the Senate does elect the appointments to serve or not.

I haven't heard of the x and y laws.

The court can only have a 50% vote if one judge doesn't vote, and if it does come out at 50% then the lower court ruling will stand.

The House and Senate don't need 51% they only need 0ne more then half the number that vote on a bill.

 

[ivan3]

rebelcowboysnb wrote: That ruling means that because the FDA regulates interstate commerce of food eggs they can come to your home an charge you with a federal crime for having back yard chickens without you ever breaking a single law. All because your eggs may one day cross a state.

If Congress passed a law regarding the eggs, the Prez signed it, the FDA implemented it, and a person was convicted for breaking it and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court the Court would, indeed, cite Gonzales v. Raich as a precedent in upholding the law.

If you are interested, take a gander at this (appears the Court might well be citing GvR much sooner than I expected (Affordable health Care Act) - usually takes a couple decades, at least): http://ca.news.yahoo.com/analysis-why-u-high-court-may-uphold-healthcare-233316172.html


I wasn't just `blowing smoke' in my previous posts. One need have a care what one drives the politicians to do, and not be all too willing to follow their drumbeat off the edge of the cliff simply because it sounds `right'...

 

[mom'sfolly]

For the Senate 51 people voting for something is 51%, the House is another story altogether. I don't agree that the Supreme Court is "elected" by the Senate. They can vote not to confirm, but they don't get to nominate, or select in any other way who goes onto the court. It is a simple yes/no vote for confirmation.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

The interstate commerce part of the Constitution among other things is what I was referring to with the X Y thing.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

This simply states that they can regulated from one state to another, to another. Remember any power not given to the fed by the Constitution is reserved for the states or the people.

10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The point of the 10th was to keep the fed from having the power to control anything other than what the states agreed to in the Constitution.

When this was wrote there was no question that the fed had no power to regulate farming inside a state. The SCOTUS has forced that power on to us by use of "legislating from the bench" or compounding court presidents. The Constitution is hard to change for a reason. The SCOTUS an the rest of the Fed are going around the amendment system. They know it is easy to pass the laws. Getting the states to ratify a amendment to make the laws have power inside a state is hard. I dont think half the states would ratify that. But the SCOTUS, not having to be accountable can an has changed the meaning of the Constitution at will to push political goal that would never get passed threw the correct channels.

An sorry, yes all should have read as 51%+ of the vote in my last post.


I think the SCOTUS should have to be accountable an I also think the 51% rule is way to easy when it come to Constitutional review
Right now it takes 5 out of 9 votes to change the meaning of the Constitution threw the SCOTUS which is not that hard. But to ratify a amendment to change the meaning of the Constitution it takes 2/3s of congress, 2/3s of the senate an 2/3s of the states. If all 9 Justices agree that a law is Constitution then you can assume it is. But most of the time they do not agree. What if 1 says its not. What if 2 says its not. What if 3 says its not. I know at 3 that means 1/3 says its not. So you can assume that 1/3 of the country says its not. Seems to me that if it takes a little over 1/3 at any of 3 votes to stop adding powers the to fed then 1/3 of the SCOTUS should be enough to stop adding power to them threw "bench legislation."