"Income Inequality"...

So, again, is he paying you to speak for him or just stroking you?

So, again, you're not going to address the legitimate concern of a business owner, because you don't give a shit about business owners. We didn't actually need the reminder, you've made it clear many times over. You don't give a fuck for people who actually create jobs.

I'm not discussing this with business owners, but with two Keyboard Kommandoes, one of whom is hiding behind the other.

And that's where, as usual, you have been inattentive, and as a result of being inattentive, you have been wrong. You are discussing this with a business owner. As of December, I have two full time, salaried employees, a Personal Assistant and a Driver.

"You didn't build that."- Barack Obama

The quantity is irrelevant if they are poorly researched. If his statements are informed by the eight books, then I suspect the quality is rather poor.

in other words, "the facts don't fit within my narrative and agenda, so I'm going to try and discredit them by saying they are poorly researched, waaahhh!"

Actually, no. I'm reminded of the Moynihan quote: "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." what you are doing, is imprinting your opinion on facts, and then confusing this with the facts themselves.

Has this information been mentioned in the Red Room prior to this post?

Wrong again my "opinion" about the 10th amendment is not an opinion, but a fact, an indisputable fact. But go ahead and prove me wrong. It shouldn't be that hard since you're so sure that you are correct. Again, I expect citations. I suspect you have none and haven't read any books about the Constitution, but go right ahead, I'll keep an eye on the thread.

The only fact is that the Tenth Amendment reads as follows: "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."

Everything else you've posted is your opinion, interpretation, extrapolation, or interpolation.

Perhaps if you cited some of the constitutional authorities in any of the eight books you've read on the subject this could be an actual discussion.

"Is too!" is not discussion.

Federal Farmer wants me to argue that his opinion represents fact. Sorry, can't be done, the words represent concepts that cannot be unified.

Still waiting on anyone to come in and prove me wrong. If you can't do that, then just admit it and we can move on. Claiming facts as opinion is not proof that I'm wrong. I've presented the facts, not opinion, but facts about the Constitution, the tenth amendment. If you think those facts are my opinion, then the ball is in your court. Prove it. Otherwise shut the duck up about something you know nothing about. It shouldn't be hard since you believe you are right.

Evidence?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsbib:@field(NUMBER @band(bdsdcc c01a2)):

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID @lit(bdsdccc01a2))

An earlier draft of the preamble referred to the people of the various states, rather than to "the People of the United States":

We the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm pretty sure it hasn't.

Like Castle, my crazy Uncle Phil also liked to believe that various members of the asylum staff were actually his employees.

That was the same draft of the Constitution that demanded we call the President "His Excellency," that he be elected by the Legistature (not called Congress in that draft) for a seven year term, and that had no provision for Amendments. It was an all-around sucky draft.

But, but that's your opinion, not a fact.

It's incumbent on you to prove that your opinion is based on something other than your opinion.

You claim to be a history major and to have read several books about the Constitution.

So far, none of that has been in evidence. Make your case. Cite the historians in the books you've read that validate your opinion.

"Is too!" is not discussion.

So what is "the people" again? Hyperbole? A figure of speech?

See, there you go taking the wrong lesson from this discussion. The only fact is that the draft you referenced had a lot of things in it that were ultimately rejected. Presumably the framers had the opinion that these provisions sucked, but we still don't know why they rejected it. All of which is to say that your claim that they rejected it proves they intended the people to not have power is an opinion, not a fact.

I've already explained why they rejected it.

But who are "the people"? I apologize if you already explained that too, but I'm not seeing it. I've seen where you've said what they are not, but I'm not clearn on what you're saying they are.

No, you offered your opinion about what the rejection means, then called said opinion a fact.

The real lesson here is that if it doesn't fit the liberal agenda/ narrative, then it's not a fact that bares any merit and is poorly researched.

Are you going to keep going back and forth over this opinion over fact bullshit or are you going to answer my fucking question?

Just put up or shut up. It's not a liberal/conservative thing. Give us the source data. Show us a document written by one of the framers describing the debate in which they determined what is meant by the words "the people," and then you'll have a fact.

Here's what I said:

"We the people" was written into the Constitution after the committee on style edited "We the people of the state of New York, Virginia, etc, etc" out of the original draft. They didn't write "We the people" because they believed in the people as a whole, as in the people of the united states, they wrote it because they didn't want to be presumptuous and assume certain states would ratify the Constitution. Ratification was not a sure thing, had they left in the original part about the states, then perhaps the states that were on the fence, may not have ratified and the Federalists would have lost the argument. Furthermore, the concept of "the people" is predicated on propaganda and the belief that we are all of one mindset. It's like when a politician says, "the American people want XYZ", he can't speak for all of us, nor does he know what we all want and he's just using a figure of speech. We all should know that and that is what "the people" is. Also, the people did not and could not have ratified the Constitution, it's why we have representative government, there's the vertical and horizontal diffusion of power and democracy. Even if you dismiss all of that(which I'm sure someone will), the historical record and precedent that has been set places the tenth amendment as a grantee to the states that the federal government would remain limited. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not. It was not written so that the people can grant more power to the federal government. If that were true, it would render the states, the amendment and the enumeration of powers useless as well as place no limit on the government.

The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution granted too much broad power to the federal government. They insisted on a second convention. During the ratification process, many states agreed to ratify with the expectation and condition that the Constitution would be amended. The very first thing Madison did once the first Congress was in session was to put together the Bill of Rights. Nine states sent requests for amendments. His desk was flooded with nearly 200 amendments. Madison chose twelve amendments that he thought were the most important to the states and himself, amongst the most requested was the wording of the tenth amendment. The states wanted a guarantee that powers would be limited and that the states not the federal government would have most of the power. The only power that the federal government would have was enumerated in article 1 section 8. This was a belief that Madison held his entire political career and it was a promise that the Federalists held during the ratification process. All powers not delegated were meant for the states or the people and I mean the individual people of the individual states in their capacity to change local politics, not national. This was not how the framers conceived of "the people" and it most certainly didn't mean the people voting for Congressmen who then in turn vote themselves more power. That makes no sense because Congress is part of the federal government and clearly the tenth amendment is an amendment designed to thwart the federal government. Jefferson considered it the lynchpin of the Constitution.The only way to grant more power to the federal government is not through legislation or statutes, but through the amendment process. I hope that clears things up, though I doubt it as I'm convinced that liberals simply block their mind from either understanding plain English or understanding these type of concepts or both or they simply don't care and are willfully ignorant and just simply want things their way.

That seems to be two different things. Are "The People" just a figure of speech, or are they citizens of individual states?

If it's the latter, then what's the difference between the people and the state?

That's because it's two different contexts. If I say, " the people love bacon and I support them 100% " it's a figure of speech. It means I'm appealing emotionally to them for the purpose of gaining their support. If I say, "the people have a right to free speech", I'm stating that the people of the individual states in their individual capacity. One is used for propaganda and one is stating a fact.