Source: Tesla Motors
quote: They spend hundreds of billions on investments in private corporations for products that often are never even used.
quote: Defense could be provided for with a tiny fraction of the budget. What about all the rest?
quote: Most of the rest are entitlements
quote: Nowhere in that document does it say that the Government can INVEST in anything.
quote: They do that ... because of the ignorance and apathy of the American public.
quote: They are supposed to provide for defense.
quote: True, but where in the Constitution does it say that defense spending must eclipse that of all other developed nations in the world, combined?
quote: So, just how strictly shall we insist on interpreting the Constitution? And how consistent shall we be in applying our absolute and unbendable principles?
quote: And where in the Constitution does it say they can spend on anything they damn well please?
quote: Fed power is explicitly stated. There is no grey area here, what the Feds don't get, the States do.
quote: Nor does it say anywhere in that document that government is prohibited from investing in anything
quote: If "that document" doesn't specifically grant Congress the power to invest in the free market with public money, that action is Unconstitutional by default
quote: ...the injunction against titles of nobility ... Government granted tax dollars and favors to Tesla and other companies, and gave them a leg up over others.
quote: Now you're off the deep end. There is absolutely no connection between titles of nobility and cronyism.
quote: You will find no authority in the Constitution granting the Government authority to regulate any commerce they see fit.
quote: You're just another ignorant person who ignores the meaning of the Constitution
quote: Again, neither will you find there a prohibition to that effect.
quote: Basically you're making up that the Government has all these powers.
quote: Also you're arguing that because our courts and Congress routinely make law things that don't pass Constitutional muster
quote: Yes, the federal circuit and supreme courts do sometimes make mistakes, but on the whole they're right far more often than they're wrong.
quote: The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society.
quote: you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books
quote: It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent.
quote: 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling
quote: and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling
quote: It's the hypocritical partisan nonsense that I object to.
quote: Because most of our money Obama "invested" in "green" companies, playing games with taxpayer dollars, ended up squandered as a bankrupt cronyism mess. This one, Tesla, is a rare exception, one example of success for an Administration mired in failure.
quote: Although, the ability for LGBT to get married should be their business, not the government's either. I think the government should be very conservative but that applies to everything. The government also has no business telling a church that they need to accept those marriages either, that's a private institution and it's up to them.
quote: I don't think the government should be restricting what we choose to drive.
quote: the ability for LGBT to get married should be their business, not the government's either
quote: The government also has no business telling a church that they need to accept those marriages either
quote: In an absolute sense, or within limits? For instance, I don't think anyone should be allowed to drive tanks: the weight plus the tracks will ruin pretty much any road they touch... There are other considerations as well that have to do with general welfare: excessive toxic emissions out of the tailpipe or excessively leaking oil/coolant fluids, for instance, or excessive engine noise, or being unsafe to operate for whatever reason. In other words, it is perfectly within the government's role to protect other people from damage you might cause them through your choice of vehicle (or really, through any other choices.)
quote: Completely off-topic, but since you brought it up, the government is involved because it chooses to impose special privileges and benefits, as well as obligations, on married people (e.g. tax savings, parental/visitation/medical/estate rights, child care/child support, etc.) For the purposes of conferring these privileges and obligations, government must necessarily define what it means by "marriage". This is a purely secular (non-religious) matter, in particular as it must apply to all irrespective of specific religion or lack thereof, and as such operates and applies only within the secular spheres of governance. Apropos:
quote: You're right, and the government wasn't and isn't trying to do any such thing. If you heard otherwise, then you were being lied to (and I'd take it up with your 'sources'.) Government can and must define marriage only and purely in terms of a civil institution (because the government's sphere of activity encompasses the civil repercussions of marriage and procreation.) To those who insist that marriage is an entirely religious institution, I always pose this question: should atheists or agnostics be prohibited from marrying? To those who insist that marriage makes sense only in the context of procreation, I ask this: are infertile (or otherwise incapable of reproduction -- e.g. through injury, disease, or old age) people allowed to marry, and is there no such thing as a marriage of convenience or a marriage in absence of sexual relations?
quote: Why should two people need permission from the state though to marry? Marriage licenses originally came about to prevent minorities from marrying. Two people, through a church or otherwise, should just be able to take vows and be married. To the state and federal government that shouldn't matter. People can handle their property on their own. Just require notarized documents for things to be valid in the event of a dispute.
quote: But if I, a consumer, choose to buy and drive a semi-truck every day, I should be able to.
quote: Now as far as emissions you may deem as dangerous, where is the federal government's authority to regulate such a thing? It doesn't exist.
quote: If the federal government wants to regulate that, Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment to do so.
quote: I don't see why the issue of marriage has to be brought into those things at all at the federal level.
quote: The current administration is telling Christian chaplains in the military that they have to perform a service for whoever wants it. No matter the beliefs of their faith.
quote: You also act like marriage has always been something the state or federal government was always involved in.
quote: So what? The government was not always involved with regulation of electricity or airspace, either. Yet, here we are. Times change. We aren't a tiny little backwater with a handful of mostly-rural and self-sufficient people any longer; we're a highly-integrated modern 300 million strong industrialized nation. The rules of the Wild West don't and can't work in the modern context.
quote: There should be no limits on Government power.
quote: There are obvious Constitutional limits, and furthermore newsflash: you (and all the other people of the nation) constitute the ultimate limit on what Government does or doesn't do. Don't look for the Constitution to do your job for you.
quote: The Founders knew better than anyone the dangers of a pure Democracy and sought to insulate the Government from the whims of the common voter.
quote: Don't look for the Constitution to do my job for me? What kind of trollish sophomoric bullshit is that anyway?
quote: So long as societal and environmental costs are externalized, its not a fair situation.
quote: You can buy a 8 year old, $100,000 mercedes S-class on Autotrader for $10,000.