Talk:Building permit

How come Evil Overlords never have to get building permits for their castles, Death Stars etc - or run into geological problems (Old Sarum, a constituency once occupied by a small flock of sheepish voters, was abandoned due to insufficient water).^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

They're evil, so they could care less about the law, if they're, in the case of the Death Star, planning to blow up a planet! 74.89.192.173 (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unconstitutional

Where in the Constitution does it say these are required? It's just communists trying to prevent small buinesses from thriving. Talsley (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I will say, having seen Hovind in action, he is a complete and utter moron. Talsley (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The first statement is patent nonsense, though I agree, Hovind is a complete and utter moron. Ty^Annoy 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure building permits outdate Marx. I seem to recall reading that there was a pretty long time in history, perhaps a thousand years or so, that you had to get permission from someone in government to build just about anything on the land that you worked. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's your land, not the governments. Talsley (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's your land, but the government has a duty to keep the population safe. Teh building is public. especially when its a church, museum, or tourist site. Even a home has to be safe - someday you could sell it, even if you don't give a shit about your safety. Fire workers have a right to know that your home is built to specifications, etc. Other residents have a right to say what you can do with land in their area. If they don't want a strip joint, they have a right to say no. That's how democracies work. GodotGrow a vagina 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But the United States is a Republic, not a democracy! Talsley (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, BIG FUCKING GIANT QUESTION. do you know shit about government? You say it's "unconstitutional". Since when does the Constitution have anything to do with Building Permits. Last time I looked, the Feds were not issuing building permits. I hate when idiots play the Constitution card.

The USAF isn't in the constitition either. I love playing that one. Ty^Annoy 02:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You know what was in the Constitution, though? Legalized slavery and the idea that black people were worth 3/5 of a human being. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The main thing here is that it's a local govt issue. there is NOTHING ANWHERE that limits the powers of local gvt cept you know, taking citizen's rights from them. But hey, play the card all you want. just shows you general ignorance. GodotGrow a vagina 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you know what's unconstitutional? Your face! So there! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you mocking me? Talsley (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point at hand, it says nothing of building permits in the constitution. That is true. But one cannot govern by the constitution alone. There are tons and tons of laws on the books that have no mention in the constitution, but the constitution allows them because Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 allows such laws. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But the original intent of those passages was for states rights. Talsley (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Read that clause I just gave you! You'll be shocked in the fact that it allows the Congress of the United States to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Doesn't sounds like a states' rights case here. On the contrary, it allows Congress to pass laws as it sees fit within its power. Yes, it cannot exced or go outside of its constitutional powers, but not all laws passed by Congress need mention in a constitutional basis. Otherwise, laws which ban child pornography, for example, would be prohibited because the constitution says nothing about child pornography that would make it criminal in nature. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I did read it. The latter laws are permissible, but I doubt requireing building permits was the origininal intent of the Founding Fathers. They would have veiwed it as the type unnessecary regulation the had revolted against.Talsley (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think the UK is better off without a constitution. Morons will forget such a thing is a guide for "what the government is", not "what the government does". ^sshole 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Magna Carta was the UK's constitution. I am now even more afraid for England's future. Talsley (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talsley, if you are going to claim something, you aught to understand it. Where has teh FEDERAL GOVERNMENt ever given building permits, other than on federal land - and that's a differnt issue. GodotGrow a vagina 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does the Federal Government have land? Why does the state government? All land should be privately owned. Talsley (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not even wrong. ^sshole 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then how do you prevent communist intrusion into your personal life? Talsley (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)