No i agree with it, there are extenuating circumstances as to why Jefferson felt he needed to do it. You know like having a world power like France sitting in your back yard with the ability to cut off you ability to export goods. But I guess he could have just done it the old fashioned way, let France cut the US off an go to war over Louisiana.
So then you agree that something does not have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution in order for it to be carried out justly. This is in total contradiction to what you have been spouting for weeks. (Where does it say xxxx in the Constitution. We should just follow what is in the Constitution and nothing more)Oh well. You like to have it both ways, don`t you?
Where is your line TA?I have never heard you be in favor of even one restraint of the govt powers, even once.
There is nothing I can do about what happened 200 years ago, but I can voice my opinion about the here and now. You think you are really clever don't you?
Of course I am. I am against wire-tapping, imprisonment without habeas corpus, military draft and conscription, illegal wars based on faulty evidence, imprisonment under the Espionage Act.....I could name a whole host of things.
TA - this thread is about Cars for Clunkers. Are you saying the C4C can be justified along the same lines as the Louisiana purchase?
Yet you have no problem allowing the govt to impose al sorts of restrictive regulations on people and businesses with regard to finances, gun control, health care, etc?
