On 3/20/2017, 6:03:55 PM, Wolf K. <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I haven't. I've merely done a reductio ad absurduim to show the
> silliness of the reason that you keep harping on this: your argument is
> that since laws are enforced "at gunpoiint" that tgherefore they are evil.
Excuse me, but I have never, ever said that.
>>> However, most people don't need to be forced into compliance,
>> <snip> the rest of the irrelevant prattle.
> Ah, but it's what's most relevant. If you don't see that, you have no
> relevant understanding of how humans actually behave.
Sorry, but it was all completely irrelevant to the insanity that you and
Caver1 are engaging in.
I claimed that enforcement of all laws is at gunpoint. You both
'disagreed', you in the form of fake satire, and Caver1 by insisting I
'prove it' (which is like asking me to prove water is wet).
I point out that it is so obviously true that it needs no 'proof', then
after you both actually admit I am right, you try to change the nature
of the argument saying that because I said that I actually mean
something that I never, EVER said, that this makes all laws evil.
I refuse to engage in debate with liars, and people who constantly
change the goalposts are liars. Are you a liar, Wolf? Are you, Caver1?
> Quite right, the Constitution does not refer to "transit". It also does
> not refer to immigration either.
No, but it refers to Naturalization, which encompasses the concept of
> Nor to borders.
No, but each State Constitution very explicitly defines their borders.
Your post displays ignorance about how the USA is different from other
nation states. We are a Constitutional Republic, made up of individual
nation-States who ceded a limited amount of their individual sovereignty
to the Federal Government 'in order to form a more perfect union'.
> Or a whole host of other things, such a railroads, highways, aviation, etc
As I stated earlier, a case can be made that the reference to 'post
roads' could be stretched to cover highways.
A case can also be made (and in fact this is how these powers came to be
legitimized by the SC) that the Federal power to 'regulate interstate
commerce' could be stretched to include a minimal power over regulating
inter-state transportation (but local 'mass transit, ie, municipal
bus/train systems are not included).
> So, to be consistent, your stance would have to be that the Federal Government has
> no power or authority over any of these things.
See above. Their power/authority would (should) be minimal at most.
Also, I wonder if you have any clue that the word 'regulate' as used in
the Constitution (it means 'to make regular', or 'facilitate' in words
Caver1 can understand, make things run smoothly. It certainly doesn't
mean anything like how it is used today (control with an iron fist).
general mailing list