Our Constitution Belongs to ...

Yet the USA Constitution is not one, its freedom of religion not from.

 

Which is why we have Freedom FROM Religion as well as Freedom OF Religion.

It is impossible to have the latter WITHOUT the former.

 

No such thing as freedom from religion, unless you live on a deserted island, the dang Constitution is based on the bible

 

Wrong on both counts!

Freedom FROM Religion means that our government cannot IMPOSE any legislation or actions based upon any religious beliefs and furthermore it cannot condone or deny any religion from being practiced.

If the Constitution is based upon the bible then you won't have any difficulty citing the various articles/amendments and the corresponding bible verses, right?

For starters why don't you provide the bible verse that provides you with freedom of/from religion?

Where in the bible does it provide you with freedom of expression?

Where does the bible ensure that you are entitled to due process and protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

 

I would suggest your Constitution belongs to whoever votes. Voters impose their views (and therefore their demands) upon elected officials. Non-voters by default don't do that and therefore have no say and no 'ownership' re; any decisions made by those same officials. So if those officials then propose certain 'amendments' to your Constitution the only persons who 'own it' are the ones who bother to say 'yes' or 'no' to those changes.

 

I see nothing saying that these are the ONLY legislative powers.

 

The United States does not exist solely for your personal benefit. Your obvious and fallacious opinion to the contrary notwithstanding poor people who cannot pay for their own healthcare insurance are a substantial part of the general public. People's fortunes vary considerably over the course of their lifetimes and the poor this year might very well be the wealthy next. It is in all our interests that our general populace remain healthy and get the care necessary to do so..

 

What other legislative powers does congress have?

 

Whatever they need to accomplish their Constitutional mission. The Constitution is not a long document. That lends credence to the idea that ii is to be interpreted broadly rather than strictly, though that is a matter of of ongoing discussion among Constitutional scholars and historians.

 

So in your opinion would there be any law congress would not be allowed to enact in order to accomplish their Constitutional mission?

 

I don't think they would be allowed to pass laws that violate other parts of the Constitution.

 

Do you seriously think that the states, when they established the constitution between themselves, chose to give their general government plenary power?

 

No, and I don't see how what I am saying implies that.

 

You said the congress can make any law it chooses so long as it doesn't violate other parts of the constitution.

The alternate view is that the states only gave congress the legislative powers enumerated in article one, section eight.

 

What are the foregoing powers? Can you enumerate them?

 

post deleted

 

They wrote the legislative powers. "The Congress shall have power to..."

 

What? The enumerated powers. Why are you dodging the point? Their powers are specifically NOT limited to the enumerated powers.

 

What other legislative powers did the several sovereign states hammer out in their treaty convention?

 

And they would have said something like "these and no others" if they had meant that to be the case.

 

Why would there be others?

 

Inversion Fallacy.

Yes, I am. YOU, however, are not, as you are using it as a buzzword. Define "reality".

Unconstitutional re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment by SCOTUS. Interracial couples could always marry (even before Loving v. Virginia), and can still marry today. The difference is that, since Loving v. Virginia, States are being unconstitutionally forced to recognize such marriages.

Unconstitutional re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment by SCOTUS. Same sex couples couldn't marry before then, and they still can't marry, even today. The difference is that, after Obergfell v. Hodges, States are now unconstitutionally forced to recognize such "marriages" as marriages.

Yes, they did.

That's not what the 14th Amendment says. You are making **** up.

They've always been able to marry.

They've never been able to marry.

Nope.

 

Inversion Fallacy.

 

Yes there can and is. Read the 1st Amendment...

What fallacies?? You are using "fallacy" as a buzzword...

No, this is your issue, not mine... Inversion Fallacy.

There is no freedom FROM religion... There is only a freedom OF religion. Read the 1st Amendment.

Re-definition of the word 'marriage'. Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, as I have defined it in prior posts.