I didn't mention anything about books or censorship. Is English a 2nd language for you? This really feels like a reply to a different post.
Discussion
Ah I see. I missunderstood in the heat of the debate.
But to be fair, your comment is like two independent parts in one paragraph. Where none of them have anything to do with my initial note.
Not really.
You are defending the constitution as a valid limit on the us federal government. I'm saying that the entire written purpose of the constitution is to expand federal power.
There was the articles of confederation before the constitution. They created a much more limited government.
The constitution wasn't ratified until 1788 and didn't take effect until 1789. One of the key arguments for the constitution was to increase power over our economy.
That entire bit of history is almost always forgotten in history classes.
So then it seems evident. The constitution is a generic legal documant, that forms the highest order of the laws within a country. Based on the constitution specific laws are created.
When not the constitution, what gives the basis for the USA being a nation?
Before that we had the articles of confederation. That was a much much more limited federal government that mostly left everything to the states and gave no power to the federal to coerce the states in any way.
I really do not get what you argue about. Constitutions and laws are not applied based if someone likes it or not. When you want to change any law then this is an other discussion. I am only talking about that Trump should be held accountable to go into war without permission from congress. This is unconstitutional.
And I do not how this has anything to do with the relation between the federal gov and the state gov.
Why not follow the law at will? Keep in mind that every mass atrocity committed by a government was legal at that place and time.
Why not when he bombed Yemen in March?
My point is that if you defer to their rules they set up you are going to be very disappointed to find they already know the loopholes they'll argue let them trample everyone at every turn.
Don't fight on their turf. The bombing is immoral. That is all we should need to know to do all we can figure out to stop them.
I would not see laws as a they thing. It is a social contract, that belongs to every citizen to equal parts.
Same as in every game. Or do you also oppose the rules of chess while playing chess?