Stem Cell Research According to the Constitution

[Elegiac]

The constitution is idiotic and needs to be revised. 12.000 deaths a year due to a 200 year old gun stupidity.

The Second Amendment is intended to give citizens recourse against a potentially tyrannical government.

Also, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Maybe not specific to your topic, but swot up on how to successfully avoid a question or derail a discussion without your opponent noticing (so watch interviews of politicians and political debates and pay attention to which words they use).

[Deleted]

The Second Amendment is intended to give citizens recourse against a potentially tyrannical government.

Also, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

Yeah keep preaching that stupidity. I´m sure your handguns would really work if the US goverment decided to stomp a mudhole in your face. Outdated ignorance is still outdated and causes 12.000 deaths a year in the US.

And when you outlaw guns einstein, you get less deaths. Funny how that works

[Elegiac]

Yeah keep preaching that stupidity. I´m sure your handguns would really work if the US goverment decided to stomp a mudhole in your face. Outdated ignorance is still outdated and causes 12.000 deaths a year in the US.

I said intended to, not does.

What the media doesn't report is how many crimes are aborted because the victim was packing.

[Deleted]

I said intended to, not does.

What the media doesn't report is how many crimes are aborted because the victim was packing.

Only an american would support more guns as the way to remove gun related deaths. But you keep rocking the highest death count in relation to guns of any civilized country and keep telling yourself they help.

[Elegiac]

Only an american would support more guns as the way to remove gun related deaths.

I'm Australian by birth, raised there and in France.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Guys, you are getting way off topic.

Listen to your opponents, if they sound uncertain about something, pounce on it and make them doubt their own information. That way you can "win" the debate, even if you are wrong.

[Masark]

Why bother to try to push for embryonic stem cells, when adult stem cells are just as, if not more effective

1. Induced stem cells are far more prone to forming cancerous tumors than embryonic stem cells (source).

2. All known efficient methods of growing useful quantities of induced stem cells involves genetic modifications, particularly oncogenes, which makes the above problem worse.

[vindicatorx]

The use of adult stem cells has had more success than using embryonic. Why bother to try to push for embryonic stem cells, when adult stem cells are just as, if not more effective, and it also saves unborn babies..

It doesn't really save them cause they would be getting aborted still. The person getting the abortion donates them otherwise they would be discarded.

---------- Post added 2012-10-10 at 10:44 PM ----------

Only an american would support more guns as the way to remove gun related deaths. But you keep rocking the highest death count in relation to guns of any civilized country and keep telling yourself they help.

Really nation bashing in a non gun crime related post.

[Deleted]

Argue as follows: why the fuck not? constitution does not directly forbade it, there for its unamerican to opposite it.
easy win, as with all debates, you can just always say that the opposition is unamerican and you auto win.

[Reeve]

As for the commerce clause, that clause is now trying to be applied to an individual who doesn't buy something. That act of not buying something is said to affect interstate commerce and that act of doing nothing somehow means the federal government can regulate any economic activity that individual does or doesn’t or never would have conducted in that area. The commerce clause is another clause like the general welfare clause that the federal government is attempting to use to say it can do anything when that is in blatant violation of the rest of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's constitutional justification for Obamacare wasn't based on the Commerce Clause.

[Someudontno]

The Tenth Amendment eliminates a great deal of the elasticity that the Constitution had. You can't simply ignore the Tenth Amendment and its application to the case of federal funding without rending the Constitution not only super elastic, but elastic to the point of being meaningless as the federal government can do anything it wants for "the general welfare". I also don't care what any specific President chooses to do in their Presidency as they have a record of blatantly ignoring the Constitution.


You are correct that they have the ability to create taxes, duties, imports, and excises and use that money to perform the powers given to the federal government which serve the common welfare. This has been taken instead to mean that the federal government can tax and then use the money for any reason whatsoever which is blatantly false as that gives the federal government unlimited power over the economy. As for the commerce clause, that clause is now trying to be applied to an individual who doesn't buy something. That act of not buying something is said to affect interstate commerce and that act of doing nothing somehow means the federal government can regulate any economic activity that individual does or doesn’t or never would have conducted in that area. The commerce clause is another clause like the general welfare clause that the federal government is attempting to use to say it can do anything when that is in blatant violation of the rest of the Constitution.

I seriously don't think you know how much power the federal government has gained since the Constitution's creation. The President is acting completely within his power by making executive orders and agreements, as well as the veto of laws. Fortunately for you, I assume, our country is in a state of devolution revolution, in which the national government is slowly but surely giving powers back to the states that were taken away during The Great Depression. Also, the multiple clauses of our Constitution are supposed to be elastic, and while I agree with you that Congress is trying to stretch out what it can do, you should also realize that our Supreme Court would declare those ridiculous laws created unconstitutional and void, thanks to the Marbury v. Madison court case.

"Only an american would support more guns as the way to remove gun related deaths. But you keep rocking the highest death count in relation to guns of any civilized country and keep telling yourself they help. "

So...what are you going to do about it? We have the right to run our country in the way we feel is justified; thus we have our Second Amendment to prevent the utter control of a tyrannical government, as an aforementioned poster stated. What are your country's people going to do if a government goes through great strides to control you on every possible level? Write a strongly worded letter? Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The constitution is idiotic and needs to be revised. 12.000 deaths a year due to a 200 year old gun stupidity.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died due to drowning in the time period you have specified in the United States.... DOWN WITH WATER!!!!!!
/endsarcasm

It's not being ignored, because the General Welfare clause is an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment itself confirms the existence of implied powers.

Theoretically the Federal Government could ignore the Constitution if they so chose.

No. If the Federal Government determined that it would no longer follow the Constitution (apart from going through the actual amendments process by which the states and the federal government could jointly change the Constitution in any way they chose including abolishing it), then the federal government would no longer be the legitimate government of the United States and it would be the duty of every loyal citizen to return the United States to a government within the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is intended to give citizens recourse against a potentially tyrannical government.

Also, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

I agree with you on this point especially since just above this I talked about removing an illegitimate federal government to restore the Constitution.

Yeah keep preaching that stupidity. I´m sure your handguns would really work if the US goverment decided to stomp a mudhole in your face. Outdated ignorance is still outdated and causes 12.000 deaths a year in the US.

And when you outlaw guns einstein, you get less deaths. Funny how that works

/sarcasmon
And after banning guns, we can ban water which kills a dozen times as many people. And then cars and then knives and then moving parts and then emotions and then etc...
/sarcasmoff

The Supreme Court's constitutional justification for Obamacare wasn't based on the Commerce Clause.

Yes, instead they justified it as a tax when the bill specifically stated it was a penalty which renders the bill unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.

I seriously don't think you know how much power the federal government has gained since the Constitution's creation. The President is acting completely within his power by making executive orders and agreements, as well as the veto of laws. Fortunately for you, I assume, our country is in a state of devolution revolution, in which the national government is slowly but surely giving powers back to the states that were taken away during The Great Depression. Also, the multiple clauses of our Constitution are supposed to be elastic, and while I agree with you that Congress is trying to stretch out what it can do, you should also realize that our Supreme Court would declare those ridiculous laws created unconstitutional and void, thanks to the Marbury v. Madison court case.

Obamacare was not determined to be constitutional so it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court will do so.

[Reeve]

Since when are viable alternatives out of scope of a real debate?

Since the debate question was whether or not the government should be allowed to fund a specific type of stem cell research. If the affirmative tried to argue that stem cell research should be funded by the US government because adult stem cells could be used which would not violate the sanctity of human life (or whatever), then the negative could say, "I completely agree. Adult stem cell research is A-OK with me. Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research, which is the subject of this debate, however, is not, for X Y and Z reasons."

[Deleted]

The Second Amendment is intended to give citizens recourse against a potentially tyrannical government.

Also, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

and when you privatize and commercially sell weapons, you will sell them to any idiot who can pay the money for them....

[Seranthor]

Yeah keep preaching that stupidity. I´m sure your handguns would really work if the US goverment decided to stomp a mudhole in your face. Outdated ignorance is still outdated and causes 12.000 deaths a year in the US.

And when you outlaw guns einstein, you get less deaths. Funny how that works

You might want to read up on that, instead of calling name and spewing garbage, go look at the crime statistics in some countries that have recently banned guns... look at the crime statistics for the city of Chicago, where getting a gun permit is next to impossible. I'm not going to call you names because I have something on my side that you dont... and thats facts....