The misogyny of right-wing religionist

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And I don't want a long Sjewett styled answer about states rights and founding fathers.

Oh come on, PS can't say hello without explaining in minute detail how the founding fathers felt about the word, and referencing the sovereign states reaction to the word.

And the sooner we get back to the original understanding that the States are sovereign and the federal government is not that the founders and framers intuitively knew to be the case, the sooner we will all be better off than we are today.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And I don't want a long Sjewett styled answer about states rights and founding fathers.

Oh come on, PS can't say hello without explaining in minute detail how the founding fathers felt about the word, and referencing the sovereign states reaction to the word.

And the sooner we get back to the original understanding that the States are sovereign and the federal government is not that the founders and framers intuitively knew to be the case, the sooner we will all be better off than we are today.

We can't go back to what never existed...

One these days we'll have to have a discussion regarding the definition of the word delegate because I'm quite certain that the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It isn't the definition of the word delegate that is at issue PS...it's your repeated use of the word where it doesn't belong.

[politically incorrect joke font] Shut up and go make me a sandwich.[/politically incorrect joke font]

Factor in history and men and women's roles in society and there should be no surprise that things have changed. A wife and mother in 1800 was bound to the home and care of her husband and children. It's 2012 and many men and women are choosing not to marry and live together but not have children because of the financial burden and responsibility that comes with raising children.

archer wrote: It isn't the definition of the word delegate that is at issue PS...it's your repeated use of the word where it doesn't belong.

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone imply that "delegate" doesn't belong in the 10th Amendment - you know, the one that says all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people? Sovereign would be the delegator, not the delegatee. It might be argued, under the popular sovereignty argument, that neither the several States nor the United States are sovereign, that all are merely exercising powers delegated to them by the people, but as the only powers the United States has are powers it has been delegated (either by the States or by the people), it has no claim to sovereignty of its own.

I own my own company. If I delegate the authority I possess to one of my employees, all they have is my permission for them to exercise my authority; it isn't their authority they are exercising, it is mine. I can alter or abolish that permission to exercise my authority at any point in time. I can remove my permission, I can terminate their employment, and they no longer have any authority to act on my behalf. The legislatures of the States can call for the power to declare war that has been delegated to the United States to be returned to them if 2/3 of the whole number of them decide they wish it returned and 3/4 of their whole number agree that it should. The United States has no say in whether or not that delegated power will be retained by it, it has no say in whether or not any of its delegated powers will be retained by it. It does not have a sovereign power to declare war, it has been delegated that power by the holders of that sovereign power. The power to coin Money, the power to borrow Money, the power to regulate commerce among the several States - all of them are delegated powers, delegated to the United States by the holders of that sovereign authority, either the States or the people.