Just a liberal reminder

[liberty]

British Dictionary definitions for United States of America Expand

United States of America

noun


(functioning as singular or plural) a federal republic mainly in North America consisting of 50 states and the District of Columbia:



Not that it will do any good you liberal will not be restricted by anything the constitution or anything else. It really doesn’t matters this country is pretty much screwed anyway; perhaps we would be better off if we vote for Putin.

There is only one thing wrong with the definition: D.C. is not a part of the federation any more than a city is a part of a state. The district is a creation of the federal government on land that is on loan from the state of Maryland. The US Government could abolish the current district, return the land to Maryland and relocate DC to any other federal territory.

The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

[Scooter]

What in the flying fig are you babbling about now?

"D.C. is not a part of the federation any more than a city is a part of a state?" What are cities that exist within the boundaries of a state, if not a part of that state? So Boston isn't a part of Massachusetts? Orlando is not a part of Florida? Peoria is not a part of Illinois? What are they then?

Obviously everything within the boundaries of a state is part of that state, and subject to its jurisdiction. Just as DC, existing within the boundaries of the USA, is a part of the USA. If not what is it, a part of Belgium?

"The district is a creation of the federal government on land that is on loan from the state of Maryland." Absolutely wrong. The district exists on land that was ceded by the state of Maryland. A dictionary can be a helpful tool in understanding the difference

"The US Government could abolish the current district, return the land to Maryland and relocate DC to any other federal territory. " No, it can do no such thing. The Constitution says that the district is to be created on land that is ceded by a state or states for that purpose. If the seat of government is removed from DC, it can only be relocated to land that is ceded by another state or states. No other US territory meets that criteria.

You have the absolutely fatuous arrogance to lecture other people about their ignorance of the Constitution, when you continually come up with these proposals that are clear violations of it. And you have to have your errors pointed out to you by a foreigner, no less.

The Oxy must be flowing pretty steadily in your parts to have inspired this latest piece of nonsense.

[MajGenl.Meade]

How tiresome. Scooter is spot on

[Sue U]

Not that it will do any good you liberal will not be restricted by anything the constitution or anything else. It really doesn’t matters this country is pretty much screwed anyway; perhaps we would be better off if we vote for Putin.

You need psychiatric help. Seriously. You are deranged.

[Lord Jim]

That's a pretty odd post lib...

[liberty]

What is there to legally prevent Congress from moving the district to where ever and disposing of the current territory as they see fit? It has happened before, in the 1830s.


“The Congress shall have Power To ...exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....”

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't know what you mean about the 1830s. Virginia, fearing that slavery would be banned in the Alexandria portion they had ceded to the Federal gov't, petitioned for its return. Congress agreed and in 1846 Virginia got its land back. DC then consisted only of the Maryland cession, as it still does.

But let's suppose that Congress could and did decide to move the national capital to.... oh, Philadelphia and give Maryland all the nice monuments.... (yeah, that'll happen)... so what? What exactly is the POINT of your... post?

[Lord Jim]

Maybe we should make Puerto Rico a state, and move the capitol there...

[MajGenl.Meade]

The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

Please review the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 1973 and the Congressional responsibility for the governance of the District. Then please explain how the combination of regulatory, judicial and executive powers encompassed do not provide "sovereign" governance.

Also then describe how it is that you assert a congressional right to locate and control the District in any place Congress may choose but at the same time you deny that there is any "right" for such a District relocated and controlled by Congress to exist?

Hark! What is that barking noise?

[dales]

Maybe we should make Puerto Rico a state, and move the capitol there...

Guam would be a better choice.....we could project our world-domineering power to all the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Scooter]

What is there to legally prevent Congress from moving the district to where ever and disposing of the current territory as they see fit? It has happened before, in the 1830s.


“The Congress shall have Power To ...exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....”

The part that you quoted, see it right there, that says

by Cession of particular States

Congress cannot move the seat of government to the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Navassa Island because they are not states, and Congress can only establish the seat of government on land that is part of an existing state and which is then ceded to Congress for that purpose.

Has it finally entered that sack of pig shit that passes for your brain, or would a diagram help?

[TPFKA@W]

Actually a diaphragm might be a better answer, sending it back in time to his mother. Be sure and send a good spermicide with it.

[Scooter]

It is no small irony that there was an active discussion about eugenics on the board when the poster child for forced sterilization showed up.

[liberty]

The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

Please review the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 1973 and the Congressional responsibility for the governance of the District. Then please explain how the combination of regulatory, judicial and executive powers encompassed do not provide "sovereign" governance.

Also then describe how it is that you assert a congressional right to locate and control the District in any place Congress may choose but at the same time you deny that there is any "right" for such a District relocated and controlled by Congress to exist?

Hark! What is that barking noise?

The point is that this country is screwed on so many levels and lack of respect for the constitution is only one.

Also sovereignty does not come from the federal that is the national government. It come from the people by way of the constitution. The federal government can not give what it does not own. Only the state governments and federal government are sovereign. And Congress placed restrictions on what DC can do. Sovereign governments are limited only by the Constitution.

[Scooter]

And what about your lack of respect for the Constitution, by repeatedly parading these completely nonsensical notions of what you claim it says, because you haven't put in the slightest effort to read it with comprehension?

By treating it as you do, you show the Constitution as much respect as you would hold for a piece of toilet paper you used to wipe your ass.

[Econoline]

[MajGenl.Meade]

The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

Please review the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 1973 and the Congressional responsibility for the governance of the District. Then please explain how the combination of regulatory, judicial and executive powers encompassed do not provide "sovereign" governance.

Also then describe how it is that you assert a congressional right to locate and control the District in any place Congress may choose but at the same time you deny that there is any "right" for such a District relocated and controlled by Congress to exist?

Hark! What is that barking noise?

The point is that this country is screwed on so many levels and lack of respect for the constitution is only one.

Also sovereignty does not come from the federal that is the national government. It come from the people by way of the constitution. The federal government can not give what it does not own. Only the state governments and federal government are sovereign. And Congress placed restrictions on what DC can do. Sovereign governments are limited only by the Constitution.

KISS. Just reply "I don't know the answer to any of these questions". You can copy and paste if you like

[Sue U]

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his like-minded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Source, obvs.

[wesw]

the apple doesn t fall far from the tree....

...his kid says that it guarantees universal health care.

.....if the story is even real, which I doubt.

[Crackpot]

In failing to check your sources you prove yourself to be the type of fool the article talks about.