Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

On Jun 30, 3:53*pm, yedyegiss dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
maaiil.c0m wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
The 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." No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. *Look it up.

I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
of judges said so doesn't change the language of the constitution
though. I never said the Supreme Court struck down social security, I
just said it isn't authorized by the constitution because it isn't.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
maaiil.c0m wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
The 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." No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.

I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
of judges said so doesn't change the language of the constitution
though. I never said the Supreme Court struck down social security, I
just said it isn't authorized by the constitution because it isn't.

Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by the
likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. However, it just so happens the opinions of the
USSC are more relevant.

I hate to be the one to break that news to you, but it had to be done.

On Jun 30, 5:09*pm, "Mike" wrote:

Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by the
likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. *However, it just so happens the opinions of the
USSC are more relevant.

Ok, now you are really desperate. Where did I say the Court struck
down Social Security? I just pointed on that the Constitution doesn’t
authorize it.

-Robert, Economic Expert.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 5:09 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by
the
likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. However, it just so happens the opinions of
the
USSC are more relevant.

Ok, now you are really desperate. Where did I say the Court struck
down Social Security?

Where did I say you said any such thing, Mr. legal expert?

How many strawmen do you have?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
maaiil.c0m wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.

I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
of judges said so

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what does
and does not violate the US Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

And since you don't seem capable figuring out that this is an AVIATION
newsgroup... *plonk*

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
maaiil.c0m wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.

I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
of judges said so

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
does and does not violate the US Constitution.


Where can that charge be found?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
yeedyeegiiss wrote:

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
does and does not violate the US Constitution.



Where can that charge be found?

The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and,
thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The rest is left as an exercise to the student.

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
does and does not violate the US Constitution.

Where can that charge be found?

The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and,
thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Except that the USSC must first accept the case as being worthy of their
consideration. If they reject it, the lower courts ruling stands.

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
yeedyeegiiss wrote:

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it
is charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to
what does and does not violate the US Constitution.



Where can that charge be found?

The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law
and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the
Constitution.
The rest is left as an exercise to the student.


The student is you. I asked where that charge could be found, a proper
answer includes a location. Try again.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

yeedyeegiiss wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

yeedyeegiiss wrote:

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it
is charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to
what does and does not violate the US Constitution.


Where can that charge be found?

The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law
and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the
Constitution.
The rest is left as an exercise to the student.

The student is you.

No, the student isn't me. I know where the above quote can be found.

It is trivial to find it. Finding it will reveal the remainder of
the answer you seem to desperately seek.

Or do you not believe that the USC is "the highest tribunal in the
Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or
the laws of the United States?" If so, what body would serve this
function?

I asked where that charge could be found, a proper
answer includes a location.

A proper answer includes "plug in the above quote to the appropriate
search tool, and go find it. The location is glaringly obvious."

Otherwise, you're just sinking to Anthony Atkielski's level of, um,
"argument."