>you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin f

>you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]" You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your persecution complex." Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported) assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative characteristics about me. Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers". Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers. You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually addressed my claim at all. Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for my claim, not an undermining of it. The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that enumeration, for instance. You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't even addressed my argument. You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate still means you lost. So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective. And so you attacked me. I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.