# The Constitutional Myths of the right



## IM2

The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.

*Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
_Garrett Epps_







Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."

This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."

First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.

*Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*

In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."

A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."

The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.

The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


----------



## Oddball

Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!


----------



## westwall

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.


----------



## DGS49

Where, exactly, is affirmative action in the Constitution?  Where does the Federal government get the right to start a compulsory retirement system, let alone a national health insurance program?  When did the USSC get the right to define when a baby in the womb becomes a citizen?  Where do federal district court judges get the right to countermand the President on immigraton policy?

The answer to all is...only in the minds of Leftist judges.


----------



## IM2

*Amendments....*


----------



## westwall

IM2 said:


> *Amendments....*






Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.


----------



## IM2

westwall said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
Click to expand...


And certainly way the hell smarter than you.


----------



## westwall

IM2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
Click to expand...






No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!


----------



## IM2

westwall said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
Click to expand...


I doubt that.

But we are going to find out.


----------



## cnm

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.


Hilarity. Instead of a 'fixed' Constitution which Scalia can interpret how he pleases.


----------



## cnm

westwall said:


> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you! [IM2]


Self praise is best praise.


----------



## IM2

*Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*

_*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008. 

Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies. 

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain. 

As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.) 

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic


----------



## TNHarley

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic


The constitution itself gives the fed govt a specific list of enumerated powers. Everything else is left up to the states. 
How stupid.


----------



## Oddball

IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic


The Atlantic....GIGO.


----------



## DandyDonovan

TNHarley said:


> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure



Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.

MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic


Paul is as ignorant as he is wrong.

The Constitution places limits on all government, Federal, state, and local.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DandyDonovan said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
Click to expand...

We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.


----------



## DandyDonovan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> Paul is as ignorant as he is wrong.
> 
> The Constitution places limits on all government, Federal, state, and local.
Click to expand...



Only since incorporation, which really wasn't until the 1920s


----------



## DandyDonovan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
Click to expand...



And Democrats don't want to follow the COTUS at all.

See how that stupid game can be played.

BOTH sides ignore the COTUS whenever it suits them. Sad that morons like you believe it is contained to one side.


----------



## IM2

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution itself gives the fed govt a specific list of enumerated powers. Everything else is left up to the states.
> How stupid.
Click to expand...


Wrong. You'll be shown this later.


----------



## IM2

Oddball said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> The Atlantic....GIGO.
Click to expand...


Yep, The Atlantic. And the Federalist papers.


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution itself gives the fed govt a specific list of enumerated powers. Everything else is left up to the states.
> How stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. You'll be shown this later.
Click to expand...

Still waiting homo


----------



## TNHarley

STILL waiting IM2


----------



## IM2

*Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights'*

Not long before he was sworn in as a new member of the Senate, Tea Party favorite Mike Lee gave a speech in Draper, Utah, about the horrors of federal legislation in the Progressive Era.

Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law--no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called_Hammer v. Dagenhart_.In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting -- that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned -- that's something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]

This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.

Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.

Lee did not mention a couple of things. The first is that the law did not say "no more child labor." What the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 said was in fact very respectful of the Constitution's grant to the Congress of the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." It forbade businesses to "ship or deliver for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, any article or commodity" produced with child labor. And the Keating-Owen Act was not the product of a spoiled Congress whimsically banning child labor; it was the culmination of decades of sustained, informed national demand by the people -- sovereigns in our system -- that American commerce be cleansed of this barbaric relic of the past.

Second, the only reason "we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case," was that the Supreme Court in 1938 -- after two needless decades of what Justice Holmes correctly called "ruined lives" -- overruled _Hammer v. Dagenhart_ and held that the federal government _can_ forbid child labor as part of its power over commerce. Had it not done so, it's pretty clear that children in (you fill in the state) would be suffocating in mines today.
View attachment upload_2019-2-11_9-21-37.gif

The third thing Lee did not mention is that nothing in the Constitution anywhere says that regulation of shipment of child-produced goods in interstate commerce "has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress." In fact, he cannot point to anything in the text of the Constitution that was "was designed to be a little bit harsh."

The harshness is in his head.

Lee is a "Tenther," part of a new extremist movement that seeks to brand all major federal legislation -- not only labor regulation, but environmental laws, gun control laws, and Social Security and Medicare -- as violations of the "rights" of states as _supposedly _spelled out in the Tenth Amendment. Senator Jim DeMint last year phrased it this way: "the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or to the people."

Is he right? Let's look at the text, which reads, in its entirety:

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.

Notice that DeMint, like a lot of "Tenthers," managed to sneak a word in that the Framers didn't write.

The word is "explicitly." Nothing in the Tenth Amendment says that powers -- such as power to regulate child labor as part of commerce, for example -- must be _explicitly _or _expressly_ given to the federal government. Compare the language of the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its _sovereignty_, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and _right_, which is not by this confederation _expressly_ delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
When the First Congress adapted this repealed provision as an amendment to the new Constitution, a few important words didn't make the cut. The Articles were familiar to every member of the First Congress. It seems hard to believe that they meant to copy the language but accidentally left some of it out. 

What does the omission of the word "expressly" suggest? 

Since the Amendment was adopted, constitutional thinkers have concluded that the _express_ powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution necessarily carry with them the "implied" powers needed to carry them out.

If "implied power" sounds like tricky lawyer talk, ask yourself the following question: Is the American flag unconstitutional? The Constitution doesn't make any reference to a national flag. By the "express" argument, states and only states would retain what we might call "the flag power." The U.S. Army would have to march under a congeries of the fifty state flags, depending on the origin of each unit. That would be cumbersome, confusing, and dangerous -- and more to the point, stupid. Congress can "raise and support armies." A country that has an explicit power to raise an army has the implied power to designate a flag. Nobody seriously reads a Constitution any other way.

_The Complete Bill of Rights__,_ edited by Neil Cogan) "[o]bjected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers, there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae. He [Madison] remembered the word 'expressly' had been moved in the convention of Virginia, by the opponents to the ratification, and after full and fair discussion was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form." Tucker's amendment was voted down. 

Chief Justice John Marshall, who had been a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 (making him, though you'd never know this from reading far-right "constitutionalist" writing, a Founder), read the Tenth Amendment the same way. In _McCulloch v. Maryland__, _Marshall rejected the argument that because Congress has no _express_ power to create a bank, it is forbidden to do so. He noted the absence of "expressly" in the Tenth Amendment: "The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments." 

"Constitutionalists" who try to smuggle the word back into the Constitution aren't being faithful to the document; they are rewriting it. (They also try to smuggle the ideas of state "rights" and state "sovereignty" back in. In fact, many proud "constitutionalists" these days seem to me to bear primary allegiance to the Articles of Confederation, not this new-fangled Madison thing.)

The best way to read the Tenth Amendment we actually have is that its words mean what they say, and not what they don't say. The Constitution grants Congress all the implied powers "necessary and proper" to using its enumerated powers.

By and large, there is no "clean division" between states and federal government in the Constitution we have. Of course the Constitution guarantees a role for the states. Some powers are given exclusively to the federal government, and cannot be shared, such as the power to conduct war and negotiate peace, regulate currency and emit bills of credit, or set the discipline of the armed forces and state militias. Some powers are given to the states, and can't be taken by the federal government, including the power to designate state capitals, adopt state constitutions, draw the political boundaries of cities and towns, choose the officers of their state militias. Many powers are explicitly _denied_ to the states -- for example, they can't even negotiate agreements _among themselves_ without Congress's permission. Some are expressly _denied_ to the federal government -- the power to set criminal venue in states where the crimes did not occur, for example.

The rest -- the powers that aren't given explicitly and exclusively to one government or the other -- belong to _the people._ The people are the holders of "rights"; they are the holders of "sovereignty." And, being sovereign, the people can insist that powers be _shared_ by the states and the federal government, relying on the political process, and on their own supremacy as expressed in presidential and congressional election, to police the boundaries. 

The Constitution we have offers no pretext for reactionary judges, like the _Hammer v. Dagenhart_ Court, to step in and say that the federal government _may not _use its textual power over commerce to stop the exploitation of children in factories, mills, and mines (or, for that matter, to regulate the interstate market in health insurance). If members of Congress want to be "a little bit harsh" and protect exploiters of children, they have to say so, and take the heat from their real bosses--the people.

Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights' - The Atlantic


----------



## TNHarley

I waited for THAT


----------



## IM2

TNHarley said:


> I waited for THAT



Yep and it shows you are wrong.

Now stop harassing me and accept that.


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
Click to expand...

I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit


----------



## IM2

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
Click to expand...


It's easy to talk shit online but you are the one applying your own interpretation.


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to talk shit online but you are the one applying your own interpretation.
Click to expand...

No, its what it says. YOU are interpreting. Rather, as usual, posting other peoples opinions as your own.


----------



## DGS49

The little essay above on the Tenth Amendment is pure rubbish. It is yet another example of Leftist obfuscation by blither.  Keep writing until you know that the audience has zoned out, hoping that the audience has failed to note that the content is preposterous.

The Tenth Amendment is clear and unambiguous;  The powers of Congress are explicit and limited, and the powers of the States are only limited by pre-emption and the Constitution.  For this reason, the Congress is silent on things like real estate law, torts, family law, inheritance, and commercial law.  In the vulgar vernacular, THEY CAN'T SAY SHIT in those areas because they simply lack the power  to do so.

Why are Leftists too stupid even to recognize the current viability of the Tenth Amendment, as demonstrated in the debates over the commonly-called, "Obamacare"?  Why was it to vital for Justice Roberts to conclude that the non-enrollment penalty was a TAX?  Indeed, had he sided WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and accepted it as a "penalty" the whole law would have been overturned.  Why?  BECAUSE CONGRESS LACKS THE POWER TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE CARRY INSURANCE!!!!!

Why? Because such a power is not granted them in Article I.

The Tenth Amendment RULES!  Which is why it was vitally important for the Constitution that Trump AND NOT CLinton be elected in 2016.  And one can only hope that the infamous RBG is GONE within the next two years, to cement the validity of the actual Constitution for another generation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.


Tell us ow the circuit courts, with respect to the 2nd, have followed case law -- particularly in regard to the right to own and use "all bearable arms" enjoying the protection of same.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We need to follow the Constitution's case law...



What you need to do is go find judicial review in Article III.

We'll wait.  Again. Ha.


----------



## DGS49

Marbury v Madison is already gone.  No point in arguing about it.


----------



## basquebromance

the constitution was not written to restrain citizens' behavior, it was written to restrain government's behavior!


----------



## whoisit

We lost our nation when we agreed to this in 1920.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/league-of-nations-instituted


----------



## whoisit

Oddball said:


> Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!
> 
> View attachment 243118



If they change it enough it will be to suit their own agendas. Like socialism which always ends in communism. Or democratic mob rule.


----------



## whoisit

Oddball said:


> Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!
> 
> View attachment 243118



Oddball, have you ever listened to this woman? She is a Constitutional layer.
 if you get time to listen it is interesting video.
This one is about ' the living document '. Skip through it at least.
  I know none of the libs will put any time into knowledge not on the plantations list though,although they need it most of all,LOL 

At last start at 1:03 into video towards the end.


----------



## whoisit

Is it Constitutional for prez to declare a national emergency?



Last 6 minutes of this video if you have a short attention span [ Who can declare a nation emergency or act of war? ]


----------



## Oddball

whoisit said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!
> 
> View attachment 243118
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball, have you ever listened to this woman? She is a Constitutional layer.
> if you get time to listen it is interesting video.
> This one is about ' the living document '. Skip through it at least.
> I know none of the libs will put any time into knowledge not on the plantations list though,although they need it most of all,LOL
> 
> At last start at 1:03 into video towards the end.
Click to expand...

Yes....KrisAnne is the bomb, even though I no longer lend the Constitution any credence as an effective constraining document.


----------



## whoisit

Oddball said:


> whoisit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!
> 
> View attachment 243118
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball, have you ever listened to this woman? She is a Constitutional layer.
> if you get time to listen it is interesting video.
> This one is about ' the living document '. Skip through it at least.
> I know none of the libs will put any time into knowledge not on the plantations list though,although they need it most of all,LOL
> 
> At last start at 1:03 into video towards the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....KrisAnne is the bomb, even though I no longer lend the Constitution any credence as an effective constraining document.
Click to expand...


Well it was good while it lasted, and wasn't really pushing the constitution just doing some corrections of those here who brought it up.
   I don't think it or anything else will stop the rapid decline going on now.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

westwall said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
Click to expand...


The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. Instead of a 'fixed' Constitution which Scalia can interpret how he pleases.
Click to expand...


Dude, you know Scalia's dead, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
Click to expand...


We need to follow the Constitution, instead of the contradictory judicial revisions made by activist judges, something Democrats are loath to do, and barely understand.


----------



## westwall

ChristopherABrown' said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?
> 
> C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.
Click to expand...






Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state.  Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

westwall said:


> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?
> 
> C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state.  Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?
Click to expand...


Wow, an effort at accountability.  Commendable!  I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.

Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple.  I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing.  From those, I derive this.

The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall?  Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution, instead of the contradictory judicial revisions made by activist judges, something Democrats are loath to do, and barely understand.
Click to expand...

 
YES, but the people need to understand the framing documents as the framers intended, which is not easy, because critical information shared between the framers is gone.  Their writing were plundered over time to impair the peoples understanding of the intent of the constitution.

For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders within a spiritual, philosophical doctrine.
The Six Nations, but more specifically the Seneca, who had fought a psychological battle with the agents of the English crown in the ranks of the powerful and influential who were also demanding a role in creating the framing documents, while secretly paying people who would accept their gold to oppose the framers efforts.  This made intense competition for inclusion/exclusion of concept in the proposed documents.  In that competition the entire doctrine was fragmented and the notion of free speech was separated from the rest of the concepts of the doctrine which were very powerful when used together.

The doctrine undoubtably was deemed too long and too philosophical to be included in the Declaration of Independence by the torys working to weaken the new nations founding precepts, so "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was broken off from the rest of the "Greater Meaning" for inclusion in the Declaration of Independence.

The complete concept of the greater meaning of free speech is as follows:

The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine by the Six Nations. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. _*From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
*_


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChristopherABrown' said:


> For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...


However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.

See:
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson


----------



## SandSquid

DGS49 said:


> Where, exactly, is affirmative action in the Constitution?  Where does the Federal government get the right to start a compulsory retirement system, let alone a national health insurance program?  When did the USSC get the right to define when a baby in the womb becomes a citizen?  Where do federal district court judges get the right to countermand the President on immigraton policy?
> 
> The answer to all is...only in the minds of Leftist judges.



Hmmm, not a fan of history are you?  

Blackmun (appointed by Nixon) wrote the confirming opinion in Roe v Wade.  JFK's appointee wrote the dissenting opinion and 100% of the dissenters were Democrat appointed.

Roberts, a Bush appointee who was appointed to the AG's office under Reagan was the author of the majority opinion that ACA was in fact Constitutional.  Same one who voted to give a majority to not allowing Trump to bar migrants from seeking asylum.

Eisenhower's nominee (Harlan) was the one who wrote the majority opinion to uphold social security.  Brennan, the liberal wrote the dissenting.  

Sandra Day a Reagan appointee wrote the majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger upholding affirmative action.  

All upheld by Republican appointees, most dissented by Democrats only.  

But if you are curious where those judges get that right?   Well in the US, we have a Constitution.   This Constitution is what determines how to nominate and confirm judges and gives the Supreme Court the power to both fact and law in those cases.  Some I guess prefer a different country under a different set of laws than the Constitution.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

M14 Shooter said:


> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...
> 
> 
> 
> However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.
> 
> See:
> A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
> A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


Yes, freedom of expression is of historical value in England, but I would like to see the exact law and how it reads.

In America, the inclusion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" shows that the specific Native philosophy was deemed the best and so was included.  Accordingly, the first 70% needs to be put back in.

_*forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, *_protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It would be logical that the Magna Carta would be the origins of English law protecting freedom of expression, but I cannot recall the specific clause if it is.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic





oh theirs a lot of us who are under no illusions as to whats been going on for a long time..
its why we go berserker in our defense of the 2nd
oh you better Believe we're clingin.....word mofo G


----------



## westwall

ChristopherABrown' said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?
> 
> C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state.  Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, an effort at accountability.  Commendable!  I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.
> 
> Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple.  I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing.  From those, I derive this.
> 
> The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.
> 
> Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall?  Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?
Click to expand...






Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ChristopherABrown' said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...
> 
> 
> 
> However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.
> 
> See:
> A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
> A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, freedom of expression is of historical value in England, but I would like to see the exact law and how it reads.
> In America, the inclusion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" shows that the specific Native philosophy was deemed the best and so was included.
Click to expand...

You can believe that clause was placed int the declaration of independence because of the native Americans, but to do so, you must delude yourself.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

westwall said:


> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?
> 
> C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state.  Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, an effort at accountability.  Commendable!  I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.
> 
> Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple.  I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing.  From those, I derive this.
> 
> The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.
> 
> Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall?  Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.
Click to expand...


BS does not communicate anything sensical. 

My trying to illicit it under these conditions has exposed a lower intelligence than I had anticipated.  Or, one unconstitutional.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
Click to expand...


I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



I don't give much credibility to your source.  What they want to do is apply their personal interpretation and say anything they don't like is a myth.  

I'd rather go to the source... and the father of this country disagreed with your article so much that his last words to the nation in his official capacity as Commander in Chief go like this:

"_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to *confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, *avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. *The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others*, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. I*f, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.* The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield_."  George Washington, Farewell Address  1795

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

That is all we needed to debunk your double talking article.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Porter Rockwell said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
Click to expand...


Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Cecilie1200 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
Click to expand...


What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.  

The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Wishful Thinking Four Other Subliminal Suggestions "*

** Demographic Proportion Bias **


DGS49 said:


> Where, exactly, is affirmative action in the Constitution?


A theory for affirmative action is that for government to comply with a precedence to represent indifference towards its citizen populace based upon race , participation of government partners will reflect some proportion for racial incidence , while advantages are afforded to others as small disadvantaged businesses .

** Nature Versus Nurture Inn Ability Train Bound **

At the core for those issues is an extremely missed perception that " Equal Protection " within us 14th amendment is analogous with " Equal Endowment " - Equal Protection From Government Versus Equal Endowment From Government .

A significant issue to contest in the courts beginning with a federal government remanding states to fund migrant children of sojourners who are not subject to us jurisdiction for legal immigration .

The " subject to clause " equivocates with a  " subject to contract law " , and " subject to contract law " includes privileges to not establish a contract until a later time when additional criteria are met such as authorized permission , whence such an individual would a subject of us jurisdiction .

The government has stipulated that illegal migrants are not entitled to social security for themselves ; noted , however , is that social subsistence is collected based upon caregiver income of illegal migrants , whether for anchor babies , or for lunch programs , etc . , as stipulated upon states .

** Dumb Old Basset Hound **


DGS49 said:


> Where does the Federal government get the right to start a compulsory retirement system, let alone a national health insurance program?


A life insurance policy at the level of social security collections would be magnanimous for those receiving the disbursement .

** Logical Deduction **


DGS49 said:


> When did the USSC get the right to define when a baby in the womb becomes a citizen?


The constitution states that one becomes a citizen of a state and of the united states at birth ; the only thing roe v wade did was to adjudicate that after viability , a standard of parturition ( natural live birth ) became relative and from thenceforth a state may proscribe abortion in the third trimester .

** Convincing Every One It Is Too Complicated To Be Of Concern **


DGS49 said:


> Where do federal district court judges get the right to countermand the President on immigraton policy?


It would be nice to know where the us public stands on an entitlement of government to determine immigration policies , as the pathetic elected officials appears to be countermanding the us public at large to remain in office .

** Legal System On The Take Playing The Circuit **


DGS49 said:


> The answer to all is...only in the minds of Leftist judges.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Porter Rockwell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
Click to expand...


Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.



Porter Rockwell said:


> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.



That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.



Porter Rockwell said:


> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.



And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Cecilie1200 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> 
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
Click to expand...


Save your name calling.  You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names?  Fuck you.

Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws.  Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order?  No.  So, it appears YOU would be the moron.  The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court.  Have you?

Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of.  Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over.  So stick it.  Stupid slut.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Porter Rockwell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your name calling.  You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names?  Fuck you.
> 
> Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws.  Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order?  No.  So, it appears YOU would be the moron.  The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court.  Have you?
> 
> Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of.  Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over.  So stick it.  Stupid slut.
Click to expand...


Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!".  You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.

I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you.  The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them.  Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned?  No?  Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.

. . . And with your "Aha!  I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.

You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits.  Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Cecilie1200 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your name calling.  You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names?  Fuck you.
> 
> Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws.  Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order?  No.  So, it appears YOU would be the moron.  The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court.  Have you?
> 
> Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of.  Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over.  So stick it.  Stupid slut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!".  You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.
> 
> I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you.  The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them.  Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned?  No?  Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.
> 
> . . . And with your "Aha!  I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.
> 
> You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits.  Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.
Click to expand...


The purchasers who owned a legally manufactured product are criminals today if they still own it and the Constitution requires the government to give just compensation to the bump stock corporations.

You can keep calling me names; it just shows what a low class, filthy, lying, uneducated stupid bitch you really are.  Makes you wonder if your mother had any children that lived...  if so, your existence may make a good court-room argument for abortion.


----------



## Hiryuu

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.



Or attempts to manipulate it in order to violate it.
For instance, the old argument about the "defense of the Free State", "regulated militia" and "right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed" provisions in the Second Amendment.

A State could pass a law that requires all citizens above the age of 18 to own an AR-15, ammunition, and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to regulate a militia. None of that would violate any provision of the Constitution, and it would satisfy all the provisions.

It's only when you attempt to manipulate one provision, in order to violate another, that a problem arises.


----------



## emilynghiem

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



Dear IM2 
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?


----------



## IM2

emilynghiem said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
> the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
> 
> One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
> at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!
> 
> This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
> What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
> to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?
> 
> When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
> should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?
> 
> This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
> that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
> and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
> the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?
Click to expand...


Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.


----------



## emilynghiem

IM2 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
> the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
> 
> One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
> at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!
> 
> This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
> What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
> to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?
> 
> When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
> should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?
> 
> This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
> that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
> and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
> the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.
Click to expand...


Dear IM2 
Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.

As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.

I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.

Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY  has been exploited.

Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
or more leftwing than rightwing.

All I can say from experience is
* Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
* Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
* Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
etc.

So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.

if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
that tends to get rejected and fail.

If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.

I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.

The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the 
"party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
"party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.


----------



## IM2

emilynghiem said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
> the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
> 
> One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
> at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!
> 
> This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
> What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
> to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?
> 
> When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
> should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?
> 
> This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
> that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
> and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
> the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
> are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.
> 
> As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
> as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
> as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
> the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.
> 
> I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
> You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
> abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.
> 
> Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
> and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY  has been exploited.
> 
> Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
> or more leftwing than rightwing.
> 
> All I can say from experience is
> * Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
> * Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
> * Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
> etc.
> 
> So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
> I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
> they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
> so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.
> 
> if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
> that tends to get rejected and fail.
> 
> If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
> that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.
> 
> I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
> of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.
> 
> The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
> fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
> If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
> to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
> just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
> being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
> on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
> I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the
> "party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
> "party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
> instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
> and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.
Click to expand...


Your problem is that conservatives are the ones who don't understand the process and you are seeing how much they don't every day. Emily there has been one group who made the laws in this nation and used those laws to abuse others. In fact they still do. Until that group in total accepts their responsibility to do what is right, then you're  just  running in quicksand. The first thing YOU can do to heal is stop using terms created by racists to belittle people actually trying to heal this nation of racism. There is no such thing as perpetual victimhood. Not in the manner you and other conservatives use the word.

Conservatism is based on a false premise Emily.  And Kings unfinished dream was for economic equality. That's what I am about. There can and will be no healing when those who are descendants of thieves refuse to return what they have stolen. There are laws greater than mans law. And the lords government supersedes any talk of self government. Spiritual laws have been broken here Emily. I don't think you understand the severity if this because all you are doing is repeating the attitude that broke the laws when you start talking that blame stuff.

When one group is abusing another it is not "blame" when the abusers are held accountable.


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
Click to expand...

Poor butt hurt boy.


----------



## emilynghiem

IM2 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
> the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
> 
> One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
> at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!
> 
> This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
> What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
> to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?
> 
> When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
> should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?
> 
> This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
> that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
> and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
> the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear IM2
> Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
> are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.
> 
> As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
> as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
> as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
> the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.
> 
> I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
> You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
> abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.
> 
> Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
> and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY  has been exploited.
> 
> Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
> or more leftwing than rightwing.
> 
> All I can say from experience is
> * Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
> * Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
> * Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
> etc.
> 
> So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
> I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
> they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
> so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.
> 
> if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
> that tends to get rejected and fail.
> 
> If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
> that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.
> 
> I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
> of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.
> 
> The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
> fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
> If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
> to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
> just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
> being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
> on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
> I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the
> "party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
> "party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
> instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
> and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is that conservatives are the ones who don't understand the process and you are seeing how much they don't every day. Emily there has been one group who made the laws in this nation and used those laws to abuse others. In fact they still do. Until that group in total accepts their responsibility to do what is right, then you're  just  running in quicksand. The first thing YOU can do to heal is stop using terms created by racists to belittle people actually trying to heal this nation of racism. There is no such thing as perpetual victimhood. Not in the manner you and other conservatives use the word.
> 
> Conservatism is based on a false premise Emily.  And Kings unfinished dream was for economic equality. That's what I am about. There can and will be no healing when those who are descendants of thieves refuse to return what they have stolen. There are laws greater than mans law. And the lords government supersedes any talk of self government. Spiritual laws have been broken here Emily. I don't think you understand the severity if this because all you are doing is repeating the attitude that broke the laws when you start talking that blame stuff.
> 
> When one group is abusing another it is not "blame" when the abusers are held accountable.
Click to expand...

???

No IM2 it's not just one group.
It's anyone who has been abusing power and that's a LOT of different groups!

Religious groups from the Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, and Catholics
have abused their religious organizations and "house rules" to cover up abuses
including child abuse and sex abuse that are criminal violations outside church policy.

Corporations have abused personhood and legal resources
to seize and destroy national landmarks at taxpayers' expense,
without any check by laws or courts they bought out with their collective influence
that exceeds and oppresses the equal rights of individuals affected by such misconduct.

IM2 if YOU are even EXCUSING such abuses as "not illegal" or
"not constitutional" THEN YOU ARE PART OF THIS SAME ENABLING.

Since I am a taxpayer and my taxes paid into the resources
these corporate interests used to DESTROY national historic landmarks
(such as in Freedmen's Town) and environmental landmarks
(such as Headwaters Forest in California costing taxpayers over 1.6 billion),
then you can say that I am part of this "problem of abuses by collective entities"

The problem is the ABUSE and the INABILITY of
citizens like you and me to address, prevent it, or correct it before it gets worse.

Why are you insisting it's only one group?

Name ALL the instances of oppression and abuse in the
entire history of the US and how you can possibly blame
it on ONE DEMOGRAPHIC group.

The reason I blame Democratic Party members and leaders
is they are NOT teaching empowerment by Constitutional laws
and authority that would CORRECT  and PREVENT these abuses.

I also have been confronting both Republicans, Libertarians and
even CONSTITUTION PARTY members and leaders why
THEY haven't stood up to enforce the Constitution in order
to teach DEMOCRATS to do that by example.

I get MORE response and support from Conservatives
who BELIEVE in enforcing Constitutional  standards and principles
than I do from Democrats and Liberals who don't believe in those,
as you said.

If you want to make this point that it is "only one group"
IM2 can you list how all the oppression and abuse
is tied to this one group.  

I'm saying that the UNIVERSAL LAWS the Constitution is based on
applies to ALL people and equally includes NATIVE AMERICAN
culture and practices in that system because it's based on NATURAL LAWS.

So that's not just about WHITE people.

My friend Lenwood who got the campus plans legislated through HUD reforms
invoked and used EQUAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights and freedoms to teach others
to defend their rights. And this is coming from a low income predominantly BLACK community.

IM2 if you don't recognize that equal power comes from invoking these laws
directly, as Lenwood used and other leaders, THAT'S where the problem is coming from.

Just blaming WHITE people isn't empowering people to invoke laws directly
and exercise equal authority as anyone else.

Gladys House has been working by this authority on her own while "men" like you bitch whine and moan saying it's "white man's fault" or whatever
AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO GET OUT AND BUILD PROGRAMS YOURSELF
AS LENWOOD DID AND LED OTHERS TO DO.

That victim-blame mentality doesn't solve the problems: rich blaming poor
and poor blaming rich, black and white blaming each other for
destroying themselves or others, just goes in circles.

Even when I blame the disparity on the lack of equal education,
experience and knowledge of the LAWS, I include ALL people
in the solution of building campus programs to TEACH
and TRAIN people to govern themselves by the LAWS.
NOT by blaming one group or another.

in EACH CASE IM2, let's hold the specific WRONGDOERS
responsible for correcting each and every VIOLATION  instead of
trying to blame a whole group. That's not solving the problem,

But tracking EACH INSTANCE and CORRECTING each one,
is going to solve the problems REGARDLESS who gets blamed.

Let's track each problem and fix it instead of arguing.

Let the credit go to the people who SOLVE the problems
so THEY own the programs and property it takes to back that solution.

Then it's clear which people to focus on, instead of arguing over the problems
that are from all over the place!


----------



## ThisIsMe

So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution?  Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".

If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.  

My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country.  Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.


----------



## emilynghiem

ThisIsMe said:


> So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution?  Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".
> 
> If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.
> 
> My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country.  Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.



Dear ThisIsMe
You have pretty much summed up how people view government who DON'T have faith that Constitutional laws and limits have any compelling authority of enforcement.

The liberal friends I have discussed this with DO BELIEVE that with people "anything goes". Anyone can pass anything through govt, so it is a "dog eat dog" competition to push YOUR beliefs through govt if you want those rights respected.

They aren't just inherently given for people to invoke by claiming them.

Justice has to be FOUGHT for. It's whatever laws, rules or terms you can pass that are going to get recognized.

So they use Government to serve as the central authority by which the "collective will of the people" is established by agreed process. Then turn around and use "whatever means necessary" (courts, media, parties, and any level of govt or public institution or private) to FORCE compliance.

You described the raw political process from the viewpoint of people who don't see a given structure in natural laws already inherent and in place for managing the democratic process. To these with no such faith in a unifying natural law   governing all humanity, it's whatever you can get by majority rule.

They don't believe anyone is really bound by the laws in the Constitution, so they don't enforce that, but only listen to court rulings or orders that spell out what interpretations to follow.

It is ABSOLUTELY like a theocracy (or kritocracy) where judges are authorized with "divine right to rule" and make laws from the bench.  If people do not believe natural laws are pre-existent, and our democratic process and laws merely reflect that not DICTATE it, then instead of using God or churches for higher authority, they use Govt as a secular substitute for "universal authority."  

Thus I have found that Conservatives make "God their Government."
And Liberals make "Government their God."


----------



## Porter Rockwell

emilynghiem said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution?  Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".
> 
> If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.
> 
> My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country.  Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear ThisIsMe
> You have pretty much summed up how people view government who DON'T have faith that Constitutional laws and limits have any compelling authority of enforcement.
> 
> The liberal friends I have discussed this with DO BELIEVE that with people "anything goes". Anyone can pass anything through govt, so it is a "dog eat dog" competition to push YOUR beliefs through govt if you want those rights respected.
> 
> They aren't just inherently given for people to invoke by claiming them.
> 
> Justice has to be FOUGHT for. It's whatever laws, rules or terms you can pass that are going to get recognized.
> 
> So they use Government to serve as the central authority by which the "collective will of the people" is established by agreed process. Then turn around and use "whatever means necessary" (courts, media, parties, and any level of govt or public institution or private) to FORCE compliance.
> 
> You described the raw political process from the viewpoint of people who don't see a given structure in natural laws already inherent and in place for managing the democratic process. To these with no such faith in a unifying natural law   governing all humanity, it's whatever you can get by majority rule.
> 
> They don't believe anyone is really bound by the laws in the Constitution, so they don't enforce that, but only listen to court rulings or orders that spell out what interpretations to follow.
> 
> It is ABSOLUTELY like a theocracy (or kritocracy) where judges are authorized with "divine right to rule" and make laws from the bench.  If people do not believe natural laws are pre-existent, and our democratic process and laws merely reflect that not DICTATE it, then instead of using God or churches for higher authority, they use Govt as a secular substitute for "universal authority."
> 
> Thus I have found that Conservatives make "God their Government."
> And Liberals make "Government their God."
Click to expand...


IF what you way is true about conservatives, they have a shitty way of showing it.

They support a fat, rich, lying, egotistical, megalomaniac whose followers think he has a direct line to God almighty.

The liberals, by and large, reject God - except in the form of a democratic God.  Hell, neither sides acknowledges the Republic.  Neither side invokes principles like *unalienable *Rights or Liberty.  Both sides are willing to violate the separation of powers and give whatever branch of government will deliver the best result to them with no regard for the long term consequences.


----------



## Tinhatter

Silly Libtards and their addiction to commie/socialist tactics are always amusing. Want to know what the Constitution says? Read the damn Constitution! It ain't written in no Marxist/Leninist commie intelligentsia jargon, in need of egghead interpreters. Want to know what it means? Try reading books like ' *View of the Constitution of the United States*' (ISBN# 9780865972018). Want to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote it? Try reading the numerous written works authored by the Founding Fathers!


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


Liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


crack is wack lay off of it.


----------



## regent

State Constitution with most amendments


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

westwall said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendments....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
Click to expand...


  The only thing dumber than I am 2 is a turnip.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


A huge pile of stinking bullshit that lets everyone interpret the Constitution anyway they see fit.


----------



## IM2

*Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.

Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.

As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view: "What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."

The Framers' main plan for preventing overreach by the federal government lay not in coded restrictions on Congress's powers but in the Constitution's political structure. This is what George Washington meant when he expressed hope that "a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim, & the brightest prospect of attaining."

The idea was that a bicameral legislature, an independent executive with the power of veto, and a separation between legislative and judicial power would channel Congress's broad powers into constructive channels. State governments would advocate effectively for their own interests both in Congress and with the people. That's a very different vision than the current right-wing claim that the Constitution contains between-the-lines "thou shalt nots" placing various areas off limits to regulation.

The far-right argument has the seductive power of any half-truth. Of course there are limits on Congress's power--they are located in Article I § 9: Congress, for example, can't pass a "bill of attainder," tax exports, or grant titles of nobility. In addition, the Bill of Rights explicitly prevents Congress from limiting freedom of speech, "the right to bear arms," trial by jury and so forth. But conservatives mean something different: What they mean is that if something isn't written down in the Constitution in so many words, the "intent" of the Framers was to keep Congress from doing it. If Congress wasn't doing it before 1787, it can't do it now.

The worst insult they can level at a governmental measure is that it is "unprecedented." Before the Civil War, conservatives argued that Congress couldn't build roads and canals; it was unprecedented. After the Civil War, Congress "couldn't" regulate child labor; it was unprecedented. When the Depression hit, Congress "couldn't" pass Social Security; it was unprecedented. When the Civil Rights movement arose, Congress "couldn't" outlaw discrimination in public accommodations; it was unprecedented. Medicare was unprecedented; so was the National Environmental Policy Act; so was the School Lunch program. Today, Congress "can't" enact a health-care system. We've never had one, so we can't have one.

In fact, the Constitution itself did the unprecedented. It created a national, republican government with adequate power to maintain and govern a strong Union during the unforeseeable events ahead. "Nothing can therefore be more fallacious, than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the National Government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities," Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34. "There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and, as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." From the record and the text, that was the "purpose" of the Constitution--to create a government with adequate power, even under new circumstances, to make the United States what George Washington, in his final address as Commander of the Continental Army, called "a respectable nation."

Articles of Confederation.

The current war on federal power, like the other attacks on its power throughout history, is really motivated by an entirely realistic fear that those idiots, the people, will enact progressive legislation. Only by importing prohibitions on Congress into the Constitution can that terrible outcome be prevented.

But the more tightly we bind Congress with imaginary chains, the less we, the people, can create a "respectable nation."

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



What an Effort!

A worthy one too.  I see the intent as positive.

A couple of things however.

1.  The correct definition of the root meaning of the word “idiot” is not published and implications of true meanings not understood.

2.  Written history is heavily censored and revised making the natural law (DNA) aspects as well as origins fairly well unknown, and not effectively denied.

Needless to say, consideration of the 9th Amendment shows that the people, at any given time can define rights retained but not enumerated.

How that is done is not taught in schools.  Lincoln was trying to use a version of it to stop the civil war, but newspapers would not publish his speeches in big cities.

Firstly it is only done through formal, lawful majorities in states.  Then a supermajority of states at Article V.

Ummm, anyone ever consider preparation for Article V as a retained right?

Why would the constitution not retain that right to see people using it to control tyranny, adapt, evolve?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.



The constitution itself tells us how to re-write it.


----------



## westwall

vasuderatorrent said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution itself tells us how to re-write it.
Click to expand...





Indeed it does.  And it is extremely difficult to do.  Intentionally so.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

IM2 said:


> The Framers' main plan for preventing overreach by the federal government lay not in coded restrictions on Congress's powers but in the Constitution's political structure. This is what George Washington meant when he expressed hope that "a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim, & the brightest prospect of attaining."



Well guarded means the people are appraised at each step of the way of what amendments are proposed by delegates and have opportunity to correct any error.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect,  in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect,  in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...


So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Spinning Wheels "*

** State Interests Versus Personal Religion **


Porter Rockwell said:


> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?


A state is concerned with , and comprised of , citizens for who the constitution was devised .

To receive citizenship one must be born and therefore birth is a logical requirement for equal protection that includes a wright to life .

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun , Roe V. Wade , in the statement , _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." ._


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Spinning Wheels "*
> 
> ** State Interests Versus Personal Religion **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> A state is concerned with , and comprised of , citizens for who the constitution was devised .
> 
> To receive citizenship one must be born and therefore birth is a logical requirement for equal protection that includes a wright to life .
> 
> The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun , Roe V. Wade , in the statement , _"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." ._
Click to expand...


What is a "wright" to life?


----------



## emilynghiem

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect,  in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...


Dear EdwardBaiamonte  cc: IM2
1. Many right to life adherents interpret "right to life" (as in the 14th Amendment) as including unborn, while others go by the legally established standard of recognizing personhood starting at birth.

This is a difference in BELIEF and INTERPRETATION that as long as it is FAITH BASED cannot be "established NOR prohibited" by govt because of the First Amendment.

Basically you cannot disparage another Constitutional principle by pushing another one "too far" where it starts to violate other rights and protections.

Sure you can defend your own BELIEF in right to life, but not at the expense of someone else's equal right to believe otherwise.  Otherwise, if you violate the First Amendment, you are violating the very Constitutional laws you are claiming to enforce, and the arguments become circular and self-defeating. We do not solve any problems this way, but just complicate them worse!

2. The OTHER Constitutional right being argued at stake in abortion legislation and enforcement is DUE PROCESS or "substantive due process" as was the issue in Roe V Wade that got abortion laws struck down because the govt couldn't pursue prosecution without the process itself violating the accused's rights BEFORE they were convicted of any wrongdoing.

This is the other side of Constitutional protections that has to be equally weighed and included:

*NOT punishing or depriving a person of LIBERTY
BEFORE that person is convicted of a crime or violation.*

So the key to resolving issues of
abortion laws and rights is similar to conflicts with gun laws and rights:
DUE PROCESS and not depriving people of liberty without first
proving they have committed an abuse, crime, violation or threat to others,
has to be EQUALLY protected or laws get challenged on technicalities,
similar to abortion laws that attempt to protect rights or beliefs,
but if they impose complications that violate OTHER Constitutional
rights and protections, those laws get struck down or thrown out for that reason.

We are supposed to uphold ALL the laws and rights,
not compromise or "disparage" one for another and fight politically
over which is more important. ALL the laws/rights should be respected,
so we need to write legislation that doesn't compromise one for another!
================
NOTE: after studying this issue and getting feedback from advocates for reform on different sides, I concluded the way to satisfy both prochoice and prolife is to eliminate abortion so that we do not have these arguments. And do it by "prochoice" methods without banning or introducing other legislation/regulations that are contested.  Agree on the goal of preventing abortion 100% and then work on steps that achieve that goal which people AGREE to take, one step at a time. Let people fund their own solutions, and only implement through govt what people AGREE on. Keep the rest separate. If the goal is to prevent abortion, then steps can be taken that work effectively, that don't require arguing what to legalize or regulate or not. 

Any legislation would have to be approved by both prolife and prochoice to be fully Constitutional, so good luck with that!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Legalism From Craftsmen "*

** In A Word **



Porter Rockwell said:


> What is a "wright" to life?


Legal positivism - Wikipedia

**Over And Again **

Pro Life Pro Gun Democrat


----------



## peach174

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



Not myths historical facts.
Taught in our schools from the beginning of our Nation, till the far left radicals came in in the 1960's
and reinterpreted it to fit their far left ideology.
They have never liked our Constitution, have continually attacked it  for 50 years and for Pelosi to use it now is appalling.
They all use the Constitution when it fits their cause but never follow it.

Just a handful of congress actually adhere to it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Legalism From Craftsmen "*
> 
> ** In A Word **
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "wright" to life?
> 
> 
> 
> Legal positivism - Wikipedia
> 
> **Over And Again **
> 
> Pro Life Pro Gun Democrat
Click to expand...


I was asking more about that word wright.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?



why do you say that????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emilynghiem said:


> Sure you can defend your own BELIEF in right to life, but not at the expense of someone else's equal right to believe otherwise.



Silly gibberish of course. Founders did not think about abortion at all, directly or indirectly, so Constitution does not address it. If you want  Federal approval, an amendment to Constitution is clearly necessary. Do you understand??


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that????????????
Click to expand...


A poster claims there is no Right to Life in the Constitution.  Is that an implied Right in the Fifth Amendment?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Correct Overview Against False Posturing "*

** More Obvious **


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Silly gibberish of course. Founders did not think about abortion at all, directly or indirectly, so Constitution does not address it. If you want  Federal approval, an amendment to Constitution is clearly necessary. Do you understand??


The founders did not address citizenship and , at least for them  , per son meant male and countable by census .

A state is concerned with citizens and birth is a requirement for citizenship and for equal protection . 

A constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion is not required , as sure at the 9th amendment precedes the 10th .


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poster claims there is no Right to Life in the Constitution.  Is that an implied Right in the Fifth Amendment?
Click to expand...


if it is implied then anything can be implied and the Constitution serves no purpose and can even be communist


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Monk-Eye said:


> *"*The founders did not address citizenship and , at least for them  , per son meant male and countable by census .



yes and so amendments were necessary to change Constitution. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Monk-Eye said:


> *"*
> A state is concerned with citizens and birth is a requirement for citizenship and for equal protection
> .



birth is a requirement for everything so Constitution can govern everything according to your liberal logic??????????????????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Monk-Eye said:


> A constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion is not required , as sure at the 9th amendment precedes the 10th .



how can it not be required when the Constitution does not mention it?????????? Can the Feds govern everything that is not mentioned in Constitution?????????


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poster claims there is no Right to Life in the Constitution.  Is that an implied Right in the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it is implied then anything can be implied and the Constitution serves no purpose and can even be communist
Click to expand...


You cannot imply what is not there.  Under the Fifth Amendment you cannot denied* Life*, Liberty, or Property without Due Process of Law.  So, whether you want to play semantics or not, it appears to me that babies are denied Due Process, but what the Hell, right?  Democrats and Republicans alike are offended by Due Process.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Technical Aspects About Logical Deduction **

** Political Science Drivel Orchestrated By The Mindless To Control Fools **


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> birth is a requirement for everything so Constitution can govern everything according to your liberal logic??????????????????????????????


Perhaps research " Liberal Versus Conservative Paradigm Is Intellectual Buffoonery " and get back with me , so that it is not required to explain it here .

** When Hypocrite Anti-Federalists Panders Statists To Individualists **


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> how can it not be required when the Constitution does not mention it?????????? Can the Feds govern everything that is not mentioned in Constitution?????????


Birth is a requirement for equal protection and until birth a feet us does not have constitutional protections and remains the private property of the mother ; as such , any offense resulting in damage to a fetus is an offense against the mother for which appropriate penalties may be levied .

In the case of abortion , the federal and state governments are being controlled by the 9th amendment , where individualism supersedes the authority of either .

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[3]_

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_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.[5]_


----------



## Gdjjr

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. Instead of a 'fixed' Constitution which Scalia can interpret how he pleases.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for interpretation granted in the powers enumerated.


----------



## Gdjjr

The Constitution is an inert piece of paper, written with an altruistic bent- to protect Liberty from the force of a gov't tyranny- when interpreted for a cause de jour it becomes an endeavor to exercise altruism (and enslave the enemy with the applause of the tools)- altruism is filtered through the prism of man's eyes- we become the rule of man, not the rule of law- that is what a "living" constitution brings about- oh, and maybe some stinky tourist interrupting the afternoon drunk sociopaths have going on- that upsets the corrupt behind closed doors transactions taking place wishing to inflict a will on the many to reduce competition (Liberty)- the "myth" is that elected sociopathic criminals care about it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Monk-Eye said:


> Liberal Versus Conservative Paradigm Is Intellectual Buffoonery "



not at all but rather basic issue laid our by Plato an Aristotle that has shaped all of human history- freedom versus govt. Now do you understand??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Monk-Eye said:


> ]Birth is a requirement for equal protection and until birth a feet us does not have constitutional protections and remains the private property of the mother ;



not according to conservatives who mostly feel life begins at conception. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> (Liberty)- the "myth" is that elected sociopathic criminals care about it.



you mean Demcorats-right???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> Democrats and Republicans alike are offended by Due Process.



how so?????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. Instead of a 'fixed' Constitution which Scalia can interpret how he pleases.
Click to expand...


so how do conservatives interpret and how do liberals interpret? Randomly??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.



and that usually means communist I'm afraid! Thanks to Trump for clearly flushing them out of the closet!!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Validity Of Jurisprudence For Legal Statute Over Half Baked Feelings "*

** Insufficient Clarity **


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> not at all but rather basic issue laid our by Plato an Aristotle that has shaped all of human history- freedom versus govt. Now do you understand??


Whatever you believe to have intended to communicate is insufficient in references , explanation , or  example for my understanding to make sense of it at this time .

** Rhetorical Authoritarian Expectations **


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> not according to conservatives who mostly feel life begins at conception. 1+1=2


Do you understand that conservative is a political science term meaning adherents aspiring for conservation of government authority ?

Reiterating over and again , as to when life begins does not have a bearing upon when a state interest begins and a state interest begins with the existence of a citizen which requires birth even for equal protection .


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The Democratic Party have proven that they cannot operate within the constitution.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Over Summarized Partisan Ship "*

** Ambiguous Translation **


TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Democratic Party has proven that they cannot operate within the constitution.


Does that conclusion apply to pro-choice republicans ?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Over Summarized Partisan Ship "*
> 
> ** Ambiguous Translation **
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party has proven that they cannot operate within the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that conclusion apply to pro-choice republicans ?
Click to expand...

no, it means that Obama illegally used the CIA, the FBI, the DOJ and the IRS as political weapons


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Liberty)- the "myth" is that elected sociopathic criminals care about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean Demcorats-right???
Click to expand...

Can you tell us what Republicans have done to protect Liberty?
Homeland Security Act
NDAA
TSA
Funding never ending wars at home and abroad
Confiscatory property theft
Asset Forfeiture
Dept of Education
The Saudi agreement of the 70s'

Without going into specifics the above are just for starters-


----------



## CWayne

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


In your own words:

Tell me what you think the role of the Federal Government is in our society.

Tell Me what restrictions and boundaries the Federal Government has.

Tell me what role the States play in our society.

Finally, explain to me the three separate -- but equal -- branches of government at the federal level and what responsibilities they have to the people.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Infrastructure Procedure Fixation "*

** Statutes Include Processes **


TroglocratsRdumb said:


> no, it means that Obama illegally used the CIA, the FBI, the DOJ and the IRS as political weapons


Okay , are any surprised that such occurs within most governments ?

Is evidence available that investigations and pending charges are actively occurring to establish those claims of illegal use ?

Which are examples for claims representing valid criminal charges or civil torts for egregious degrees of wrong committed by agents of those organizations or the executive administration ?

A productive measure is to shore up governance policies through legal processes in favor for individual liberty .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats and Republicans alike are offended by Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how so?????????
Click to expand...


If the left perceives any action to be racist, then they don't give the benefit of a doubt to anyone... Did you see the way one of the pallbearers refused to shake Sen. McConnell's hand at Elijah Cummings funeral?  Actions speak louder than words.

Watch the left; they do not believe in Due Process.

Donald Trump said:  "Take their guns, Due Process later."


----------



## Natural Citizen

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> not at all but rather basic issue laid our by Plato an Aristotle that has shaped all of human history- freedom versus govt. Now do you understand??



Plato and Aristotle served tyrants. And both were content for the people to remain subjects of tyrants.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Natural Citizen said:


> Plato and Aristotle served tyrants. And both were content for the people to remain subjects of tyrants.



we were saying that political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle defined all of human history after them, not saying who they served or what they were content with. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> Can you tell us what Republicans have done to protect Liberty?



they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us what Republicans have done to protect Liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?
Click to expand...


I will tell you what I understand.  I wouldn't piss on a Democrat if they were burning in Hell fire.  Chuck Schumer, Adam, Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, etc. make me want to vomit.

Having said that, after spending my entire adult life voting for Republicans and working in the Republican Party going back to Reagan, I can say with full knowledge that the Republican Party is as bad as the Democrats any day of the week.

Just on this immigration issue, the Republicans have spent far more than they claimed they could save us.  They are now into the* trillions of dollars *and the best idea they can come up with is a wall?  Adding insult to injury the Republicans, like they've always done, have taken more of our Liberties than the Democrats have even vowed to take.

The illegally ratified 14th and Amendment (which gave you so called "_anchor babies_") are the work of Republicans as is the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  If you think the creation of the IRS and the income tax (another illegally ratified amendment) are about limited government, then we live in different worlds, The 16th Amendment is the work of the Republicans.  The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security - a half billion dollar + clusterphuck to get off the ground was another Republican idea.  The all out assault on your Right to Privacy and the way many Americans are locked out of they system by the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap are Republican creations.

All of my life I've voted for the lesser of two evils, but no matter what, evil wins.  The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.  The Republicans wanted term limits (an idiotic idea) and the Democrats wanted to wage a war at the border.  A decade and a half later, the Republicans are fighting the border war while Democrat Tom Steyer is on tv, trying to get Democrats to vote for him with term limits being one of his pet issues.  It's been musical chairs for bad ideas for almost FOUR decades of my voting life.  Reagan was a Dem who ran as a Republican as was Trump and they only proved two things:

Put lipstick on a pig and you still have a pig
A leopard cannot change its spots.

All the Democrats have to do to sell the public bad ideas is to change parties.  On immigration, the Republicans are promising to fix an issue THEY created.  It's hilarious.  Or maybe it's sad since it is the death knell for the Republic.


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?


I understand lip service is not taking action. Do you not understand that?


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> All the Democrats have to do to sell the public bad ideas is to change parties. On immigration, the Republicans are promising to fix an issue THEY created. It's hilarious. Or maybe it's sad since it is the death knell for the Republic.


The Death Knell was dealt long, long ago- way before modern day problems which are nothing more than the results of the seeds of discord being sown. 
Politicians, on BOTH sides are indeed two sides of the same coin. Statist- most are lawyers and/or have lawyers working in their staff- the SC is made up of former lawyers- lawyers are expert at twisting, spinning and castigating words to effect a direction- e.g. It's not a Fine, it's a Tax- brought to us by, a Republican- shit like that, suggests to me, a fundamental problem, as in basic education when brains are sponges- or, they're all drunks- I say that because no rationally, even semi-educated person can believe the crap they spew- it may be a combination of both and could explain why the booze industry isn't vilified like *illicit* substances- SMH-


----------



## anynameyouwish

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.




"A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please."

yup.

that's right.

every generation has a right to decide for themselves.....

our founding fathers were NOT tyrants who demanded that  ALL citizens for ALL TIME to come MUST do what THEY COMMAND!


we have a right to amend, adjust, change, vary and alter as we see fit.

like;  CHANGING the constitution to allow women and blacks equal rights.


----------



## Gdjjr

anynameyouwish said:


> we have a right to amend, adjust, change, vary and alter as we see fit.


Through a process- amendments- that's not a law favoring one over another which is fundamental to the Bill of Rights AND THE reason we have re pre sentatives in DC- amendments were put in because they aren't fast or easy- though they can be faked, as Porter Rockwell has pointed out-


----------



## Flash

Liberals are as ignorant of the Constitution as they are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.


----------



## westwall

anynameyouwish said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please."
> 
> yup.
> 
> that's right.
> 
> every generation has a right to decide for themselves.....
> 
> our founding fathers were NOT tyrants who demanded that  ALL citizens for ALL TIME to come MUST do what THEY COMMAND!
> 
> 
> we have a right to amend, adjust, change, vary and alter as we see fit.
> 
> like;  CHANGING the constitution to allow women and blacks equal rights.
Click to expand...






No, they don't.   We are not a mob.  The Founders were far smarter than you and made sure that it would be exceedingly difficult to violate the Rights of the individual through government fiat.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

anynameyouwish said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please."
> 
> yup.
> 
> that's right.
> 
> every generation has a right to decide for themselves.....
> 
> our founding fathers were NOT tyrants who demanded that  ALL citizens for ALL TIME to come MUST do what THEY COMMAND!
> 
> 
> we have a right to amend, adjust, change, vary and alter as we see fit.
> 
> like;  CHANGING the constitution to allow women and blacks equal rights.
Click to expand...


I don't understand your post.  Sorry. Just for accuracy:

1)   We have inherent, natural,* absolute*, irrevocable, *unalienable* Rights that the *earliest* courts ruled (consistent with the founders / framers intent) to be preexisting and above the law.  So, there is nothing - even a constitutional amendment can do to change those without destroying our form of government

2)  Anything not related to *unalienable* Rights can be changed via an amendment.

“_Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* Rights of man._

...The natural progress of things is for Liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.

..._Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual_.”  Thomas Jefferson

“_Guard with jealous attention the public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”   Patrick Henry


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...The natural progress of things is for Liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.


Which is *a* why people must beat them at their own game- though that does require innovative thinking which doesn't seem to be an attribute many share- rules and laws will always be broken, one way or another- see the *D*istrict of *C*riminals as evidence at its highest order.

Love the Jefferson quotes btw!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> we have a right to amend, adjust, change, vary and alter as we see fit.
> .



not really, a communist or monarchist amendment would be unconstitutional. Our Founders provided only for change consistent with liberty! If  you don't like liberty  why not go to Cuba?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand lip service is not taking action. Do you not understand that?
Click to expand...


cutting taxes and regulations, SCOTUS picks, generally supporting capitalism, family, law and order, military  is huge action while Democrats are poised to implement treasonous Green New Deal Great Communist Depression. Make sense now??


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Make sense now??


No- pay to play is what BOTH sides subscribe to borrow to spend- we're living the results- we're in a quasi-capitalist (often referred to as Crony Capitalism) economy implemented by Nixon and he even said, I guess we're all Keynesian now- that is a top down, central planning economic theory developed by a British economist for the monarchy which the founders fought a war to get away from- regulations, in this day and time always favors one over another, legally, which is arguably the exact opposite of the intent- the founders despised the thought of a Standing Army which is THE reason they had only a Navy and part of the reason for the 2nd amendment- there are no caveats in the Bill of Rights declaring that National Security can over ride them- the 4th amendment has been eviscerated- because Bush Jr determined (LOL) our freedom and liberty was just a god damn piece of paper- and not even one Republican has done anything other than pay lip service to the many ills the District of Criminals has implemented-

*A Powerful Government Equals a Weak Nation*
It is supremely ironic that the United States has the most powerful government in history and, at the same time, the most frightened people in the world.

Many Americans are scared of everything. Russia. Iran. China. North Korea. Muslims. Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda. The terrorists. The drug dealers. The illegal immigrants. The communists. ISIS. Syria. Such Americans are convinced that every scary creature in the world is coming to get them.


----------



## anynameyouwish

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us what Republicans have done to protect Liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?
Click to expand...



"they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?"

limited government for BIG BUSINESS but a NANNY STATE for everyone else.

laws against pot are NOT limited or smaller government.

legal discrimination against gays or atheists or muslims is NOT limited or smaller goverment.

And SOME democrats may be a bit too far to the left but only a deranged nazi fascist  would claim that ALL democrats are communists.

That is illogical.

you don't pass the logic test.


your right to vote has been terminated


----------



## Gdjjr

anynameyouwish said:


> "they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?"


LOL- no, they don't that's the point- they pay lip service to it then always vote to expand their authority and power-


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> limited government for BIG BUSINESS but a NANNY STATE for everyone else.



Republicans support capitalism for Big Business and all business which means for all Americans. NOW do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> legal discrimination against gays or atheists or muslims is NOT limited or smaller goverment.



a limited govt can have a many laws.  You have confused anarchy with limited govt. Do you understand now???


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Republicans support capitalism for Big Business and all business which means for all Americans.


BOTH sides subscribe to our quasi Keynesian monetary policy financed with Fiat currency and you can thank, Republican Nixon-


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> a limited govt can have a many laws.


Define limited.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> And SOME democrats may be a bit too far to the left but only a deranged nazi fascist  would claim that ALL democrats are communists.


 dear, about 50% of Dims support the far left libcommunists which is about double 10 years ago and we know full well in which direction they are moving.


Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> BOTH sides subscribe to our quasi Keynesian monetary policy financed with Fiat currency and you can thank, Republican Nixon-



insane of course!! Inflation  has been near zero for a decade now reflecting the state of macro economic wisdom. They are managing the money supply to get the same results we would get on a gold standard. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they support limited govt while Democrats are now openly communist. Do you understand?"
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- no, they don't that's the point- they pay lip service to it then always vote to expand their authority and power-
Click to expand...


trump is cutting taxes and regulations like never before. If he had more support he could do far more. NOw do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> Such Americans are convinced that every scary creature in the world is coming to get them.



they are!! look at world history every single country's borders came from war and the last century was the bloodiest of all. Now do you understand??


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> insane of course!! Inflation has been near zero for a decade now reflecting the state of macro economic wisdom. They are managing the money supply to get the same results we would get on a gold standard.


It finances wholesale slaughter- now, do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> [
> It finances wholesale slaughter- now, do you understand?



care to explain?? Notice you have to be asked because you don't have much to say about it in the end.


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> care to explain??



It finances wholesale slaughter-

wholesale: 
_adjective_
adjective: *wholesale*
done on a large scale; extensive.

slaughter: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) *: *


----------



## Oddball

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH sides subscribe to our quasi Keynesian monetary policy financed with Fiat currency and you can thank, Republican Nixon-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insane of course!! Inflation  has been near zero for a decade now reflecting the state of macro economic wisdom. They are managing the money supply to get the same results we would get on a gold standard. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

*Inflation  has been near zero for a decade now reflecting the state of macro economic wisdom.*

The prices of precious metals would beg to differ with you.
*
They are managing the money supply to get the same results we would get on a gold standard. Do you understand?*

They are managing the money supply to buy up as many home mortgages at they can lay their mitts on. Do you understand the implications of that for the next time the economy shits the bed?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It finances wholesale slaughter-
> 
> wholesale:
> _adjective_
> adjective: *wholesale*
> done on a large scale; extensive.
> 
> slaughter: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) *: *
Click to expand...

I guess you are afraid to tell us what causes what slaughter???? Because you you are BSing???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> The prices of precious metals would beg to differ with you.



 actually  inflation is about all prices not the price of metal. Do you understand?


----------



## Oddball

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices of precious metals would beg to differ with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually  inflation is about all prices not the price of metal. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I understand just fine...But prices for coin metals aren't subject to other economic pressures as other things in the economic basket -like technology- are.

The reported inflation rate is given to us by those with a vested interest in keeping faith in FRNs afloat.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> They are managing the money supply to buy up as many home mortgages at they can lay their mitts on. Do you understand the implications of that for the next time the economy shits the bed?



not really we just went through it so if it happens again we know the drill and are prepared this time and impact would be minimal.


----------



## Oddball

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are managing the money supply to buy up as many home mortgages at they can lay their mitts on. Do you understand the implications of that for the next time the economy shits the bed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really we just went through it so if it happens again we know the drill and are prepared this time and impact would be minimal.
Click to expand...

hehehehe....hahahahahaha....ooohhhh man......hohohohohohoho.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices of precious metals would beg to differ with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually  inflation is about all prices not the price of metal. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand just fine...But prices for coin metals aren't subject to other economic pressures as other things in the economic basket -like technology- are.
> 
> The reported inflation rate is given to us by those with a vested interest in keeping faith in FRNs afloat.
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are managing the money supply to buy up as many home mortgages at they can lay their mitts on. Do you understand the implications of that for the next time the economy shits the bed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really we just went through it so if it happens again we know the drill and are prepared this time and impact would be minimal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hehehehe....hahahahahaha....ooohhhh man......hohohohohohoho.....
> 
> View attachment 296832
Click to expand...


this is a liberals idea of debating


----------



## Oddball

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are managing the money supply to buy up as many home mortgages at they can lay their mitts on. Do you understand the implications of that for the next time the economy shits the bed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really we just went through it so if it happens again we know the drill and are prepared this time and impact would be minimal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hehehehe....hahahahahaha....ooohhhh man......hohohohohohoho.....
> 
> View attachment 296832
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a liberals idea of debating
Click to expand...

I don't know what else to say to people who still believe that the banksters at the Fed have anyone's interests outside of their own on the radar screen.

They've been buying up trillions in MBSs with their "quantitative easing"....And it's not because they want to make sure that we the peons can stay in our mortgaged homes the next time the economy takes a shit.....They have bazillions on their balance sheet, and a huge portion of it is in Murican real estate.

Wake the hell up, dude.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jackson

IM2 said:


> *Amendments....*


I have this feeling that you did not comprehend what the OP was all about.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> banksters at the Fed have anyone's interests outside of their own on the radar screen.



any evidence they ever took even a penny or just goof ball conspiracy theory????


----------



## Oddball

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> banksters at the Fed have anyone's interests outside of their own on the radar screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any evidence they ever took even a penny or just goof ball conspiracy theory????
Click to expand...

They charge interest on the money they created out of thin air....Adds up to far more than a penny.

Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.

The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".


----------



## Sun Devil 92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
Click to expand...


Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.


----------



## Lastamender

IM2 said:


> *Amendments....*


Oh yeah, they do that all the time. You must not know what that takes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Oddball said:


> They charge interest on the money they created out of thin air....Adds up to far more than a penny.
> 
> Nice work if you can get it.



are you saying that they personally keep the money to buy yachts, houses etc??????


----------



## regent

Sun Devil 92 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

regent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
Click to expand...


The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Sun Devil 92 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.
> 
> I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.
> 
> https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj
> 
> So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.
Click to expand...




Sun Devil 92 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.
Click to expand...


While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has *NO* authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position_."


_“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Porter Rockwell said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.
> 
> I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.
> 
> https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj
> 
> So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has *NO* authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.
> 
> Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.
> 
> George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:
> 
> "_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position_."
> 
> 
> _“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775
Click to expand...


What are you talking about ?

They can do it.

They do it all the time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.
> 
> I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.
> 
> https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj
> 
> So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has *NO* authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.
> 
> Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.
> 
> George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:
> 
> "_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position_."
> 
> 
> _“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ?
> 
> They can do it.
> 
> They do it all the time.
Click to expand...


Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too.  There is* NO* provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.

I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time.  They have the *POWER* to do it, but they do NOT have the *AUTHORITY* to do it.  They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Libertarian is Liberalism "*

** Conservation Of Government Authoritarianism Is Conservative **


anynameyouwish said:


> legal discrimination against gays or atheists or muslims is NOT limited or smaller goverment.


Legal discrimination against fictional ishmaelism is based upon whether the creed violates non violence principles .

A creed that violates non violence principles entitles those subject to its edicts and tenets to self defense , which justifiably includes not extending an opportunity for citizenship to enter the voting booth .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Public Deprived Of Illegal Migrant Status As Subjects Of Foreign Jurisdiction "*

** What Something Else **


Porter Rockwell said:


> The illegally ratified 14th and Amendment (which gave you so called "_anchor babies_") are the work of Republicans as is the so - called "_Patriot Act_."


At some point , a criteria for citizenship would have been remanded .

The us 14th amendment provides the ability to not allow anchor babies by the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , but thus far there has been only indifference , or more succinctly - ineptitude , on the part of those capable of challenging the policy .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Public Deprived Of Illegal Migrant Status As Subjects Of Foreign Jurisdiction "*
> 
> ** What Something Else **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The illegally ratified 14th and Amendment (which gave you so called "_anchor babies_") are the work of Republicans as is the so - called "_Patriot Act_."
> 
> 
> 
> At some point , a criteria for citizenship would have been remanded .
> 
> The us 14th amendment provides the ability to not allow anchor babies by the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , but thus far there has been only indifference , or more succinctly - ineptitude , on the part of those capable of challenging the policy .
Click to expand...


I don't know where that insanity originated from, but to call it B.S. would be an insult to the term B.S.

If a foreigner is not subject to the jurisdiction, then they cannot be tried and judged in an American court.  Period.  The very first and I mean very first point of attack in any legal action is to challenge jurisdiction.  When you file a response to any legal action, if there is *ANY *possibility that the court lacks jurisdiction for any reason, it is the first defense you use.  Period.  End of story.

So, what does that phraseology "_subject to the jurisdiction_" mean in the 14th Amendment?  That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government.  They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction.  Diplomats have diplomatic immunity.  Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.

I don't fret over it to begin with since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and has no meaning to me.  It isn't worth the paper it's written on and without it, you wouldn't have so - called "a_nchor babies_" to whine about.  See what I did there?

You cannot deport anyone if the court or the Attorney General (in this case) does not have jurisdiction.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate "*

** Useless Bias **


Porter Rockwell said:


> So, what does that phraseology "_subject to the jurisdiction_" mean in the 14th Amendment?  That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government.  They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction.  Diplomats have diplomatic immunity.  Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.


Your concern appears to be to blubber about whether the 14th amendment is valid and are certainly opposed to any justification of it for use against " anchor babies " .

As to why you are arguing against your own interests , while also ignorantly omitting that _jus sanguinis_ has not ever been challenged beyond " us vs wka " , whom was present in the us by legal agreement ( as a subject of us legal immigration system ) and in good standing ( law abiding ) , is pathetic .

** Direct Argument **

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law ( law abiding ) was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli ( citizenship by birth ) , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction ( lost the argument  because wka was a legal migrant and a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ) was relevant to jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship of parent ) .

The latter opinion disqualifies children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for not being a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ( neither a legal migrant and , perhaps subjectively , not law abiding for being in violation of the same ) .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
_The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. *The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;* on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] *The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—*that is, *not being claimed as a citizen by another country* via jus sanguinis_ *(inheriting citizenship from a parent)*—an interpretation which, in *the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]*


** How To Become A Legal Subject Of A Foreign Government **

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .


** Simple Contract Law Exclusion As Subject Of Jurisdiction **

The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " of an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
_3 . It is merely *an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations,* and *the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.*_


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate "*
> 
> ** Useless Bias **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does that phraseology "_subject to the jurisdiction_" mean in the 14th Amendment?  That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government.  They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction.  Diplomats have diplomatic immunity.  Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern appears to be to blubber about whether the 14th amendment is valid and are certainly opposed to any justification of it for use against " anchor babies " .
> 
> As to why you are arguing against your own interests , while also ignorantly omitting that _jus sanguinis_ has not ever been challenged beyond " us vs wka " , whom was present in the us by legal agreement ( as a subject of us legal immigration system ) and in good standing ( law abiding ) , is pathetic .
> 
> ** Direct Argument **
> 
> The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law ( law abiding ) was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli ( citizenship by birth ) , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction ( lost the argument  because wka was a legal migrant and a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ) was relevant to jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship of parent ) .
> 
> The latter opinion disqualifies children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for not being a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ( neither a legal migrant and , perhaps subjectively , not law abiding for being in violation of the same ) .
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
> _The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. *The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;* on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] *The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—*that is, *not being claimed as a citizen by another country* via jus sanguinis_ *(inheriting citizenship from a parent)*—an interpretation which, in *the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]*
> 
> 
> ** How To Become A Legal Subject Of A Foreign Government **
> 
> Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .
> 
> A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .
> 
> 
> ** Simple Contract Law Exclusion As Subject Of Jurisdiction **
> 
> The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " of an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .
> 
> Contractual term - Wikipedia
> _3 . It is merely *an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations,* and *the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.*_
Click to expand...


Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.  I invite all to read the following link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions.  As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly *opposite* of what you're arguing.  The above link unequivocally proves that point.

You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.)  It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.

*Unalienable* Rights are far more important than your little immigration issue.  The bottom line is, the 14th Amendment *nullifies* the Bill of Rights and proclaims that the federal government is the benefactor of ALL of your Rights. You are advocating God given Rights.  You can support it all you want, but there are some Rights that are above the reach of the government if you support the Constitution as originally written and intended.

The reality is that the *millions *of children born in the U.S. over the last three or four generations whose parents were undocumented have birth certificates, Socialist Surveillance Numbers / National ID (aka a "_Social Security Number_.")  and teach your children, serve in the military, are police officers, doctors, scientists, etc., etc.  The federal government is not going to uncitizen them and deport them.  It's not going to happen and you're selling a pig in a poke.  The United States Supreme Court "_could_," in theory over-rule themselves; however, once you understand how far they have been willing to go in creating ex post facto laws, you would see that what you're selling simply will NOT happen.

Your understanding of that Court ruling is 180 degrees opposite of reality.  The better course of action is to rebel against the 14th Amendment because the government big enough to give all you want is big enough to take it away.  The only way you preserve the Bill of Rights is to declare a war against the *illegally passed* 14th Amendment.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Porter Rockwell said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.
> 
> I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.
> 
> https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj
> 
> So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has *NO* authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.
> 
> Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.
> 
> George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:
> 
> "_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position_."
> 
> 
> _“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ?
> 
> They can do it.
> 
> They do it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too.  There is* NO* provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.
> 
> I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time.  They have the *POWER* to do it, but they do NOT have the *AUTHORITY* to do it.  They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.
> 
> I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.
> 
> https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj
> 
> So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case law changes.  The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has *NO* authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.
> 
> Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.
> 
> George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:
> 
> "_It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position_."
> 
> 
> _“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ?
> 
> They can do it.
> 
> They do it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too.  There is* NO* provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.
> 
> I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time.  They have the *POWER* to do it, but they do NOT have the *AUTHORITY* to do it.  They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You posted and "quoted" me, but there is nothing there.  Were you trying to make a point or just repeating what I just said?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Deny A Child Of An Illegal Migrant Citizenship Then Take It To Court And Prove It "*

** Simple Dispatch Of Self Validating Tripe **


Porter Rockwell said:


> Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.  I invite all to read the following link:
> 
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship
> 
> The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions.  As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly *opposite* of what you're arguing.  The above link unequivocally proves that point.


You are as ignorant as they come , as you obviously lack an ability to discern that the mother and father of wong were legally allowed to enter the us via its work visa program , and if  they had not been legally allowed to enter the use via its work visa program the majority would have concluded that they were not in good legal standing and disallowed the citizenship by birth .

** Fuck Off Coward **


Porter Rockwell said:


> You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.)  It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.



** Blathering Hubris **


Porter Rockwell said:


> *Unalienable* Rights are ..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Deny A Child Of An Illegal Migrant Citizenship Then Take It To Court And Prove It "*
> 
> ** Simple Dispatch Of Self Validating Tripe **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.  I invite all to read the following link:
> 
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship
> 
> The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions.  As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly *opposite* of what you're arguing.  The above link unequivocally proves that point.
> 
> 
> 
> You are as ignorant as they come , as you obviously lack an ability to discern that the mother and father of wong were legally allowed to enter the us via its work visa program , and if  they had not been legally allowed to enter the use via its work visa program the majority would have concluded that they were not in good legal standing and disallowed the citizenship by birth .
> 
> ** Fuck Off Coward **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.)  It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ** Blathering Hubris **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights are ..
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Court decision means 180 degrees *OPPOSITE *of what you are arguing.  I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong.  Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.

I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said.  The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward.  I'm not.  The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place.  Then you can find the answer to that quite easily.  Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward.  It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Fallacy Of False Equivalence "*

** Pretentious Rhetoric **


Porter Rockwell said:


> The Court decision means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you are arguing.  I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong.  Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.
> I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship


Repeat the link to left wing blather all you wish , i read it when you provided it and i read it again just to be certain , it does not address the point of issue .

The idiocy of the reich to challenge roe v wade day in and day out is notorious , but challenging a poignant , direct and valid issue that was not addressed by us vs wka is despicable .

** Put Up Or Shut Up **


Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said.  The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward.  I'm not.  The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place.  Then you can find the answer to that quite easily.  Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward.  It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.


So ascribing the obvious valid technicality of law that the parents of wka were legally allowed entry into the us as a white supremacist argument , as do the anti-racist racist of the left , is not ad hominem , name calling , or intellectual cowardice ?

So dogmatically alluding to the witless ramblings of a biased article at some random site on the internet promoting dogma that does not address in any way a consideration for the legal status of wka parents at the time of his birth is not intellectual cowardice ?

Keep your loathsome petty excuses and bring a case before the us supreme court challenging the technical element of law that was not addressed by us vs wka and stop pretending that you are more than you can prove yourself or your opinion to be .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fallacy Of False Equivalence "*
> 
> ** Pretentious Rhetoric **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court decision means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you are arguing.  I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong.  Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.
> I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat the link to left wing blather all you wish , i read it when you provided it and i read it again just to be certain , it does not address the point of issue .
> 
> The idiocy of the reich to challenge roe v wade day in and day out is notorious , but challenging a poignant , direct and valid issue that was not addressed by us vs wka is despicable .
> 
> ** Put Up Or Shut Up **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said.  The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward.  I'm not.  The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place.  Then you can find the answer to that quite easily.  Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward.  It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So ascribing the obvious valid technicality of law that the parents of wka were legally allowed entry into the us as a white supremacist argument , as do the anti-racist racist of the left , is not ad hominem , name calling , or intellectual cowardice ?
> 
> So dogmatically alluding to the witless ramblings of a biased article at some random site on the internet promoting dogma that does not address in any way a consideration for the legal status of wka parents at the time of his birth is not intellectual cowardice ?
> 
> Keep your loathsome petty excuses and bring a case before the us supreme court challenging the technical element of law that was not addressed by us vs wka and stop pretending that you are more than you can prove yourself or your opinion to be .
Click to expand...


You should talk about blather!  Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English. 

Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward?  I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward.  And you never went to law school. 

I don't have to pretend anything.  You are uneducated and full of yourself.  And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you.  Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.

For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Mocking The Profundity Of Disingenuous Ability "*

** Rocks For Brains **


Porter Rockwell said:


> You should talk about blather!  Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English.
> Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward?  I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward.  And you never went to law school.
> I don't have to pretend anything.  You are uneducated and full of yourself.  And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you.  Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.


You are not only demonstrating the characteristics of an intellectual coward , but also that of a buffoon .

** When This Is a Self Reference **


Porter Rockwell said:


> *For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:*
> 
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship


So your idea of grandiose reference written by a constitutional lawyer of the highest degree is an artist , a reporter and a great public defender from florida .

Ephrat Livni - Wikipedia
_Livni wrote for the Jerusalem Report[1] in Israel and for ABC News in New York.[1]_
_In 2007, she began working as assistant public defender in Palm Beach County, providing publicly funded defense counsel to indigents in the criminal justice system in Florida.[9][10]_

_Ephrat Livni_
_Ephrat Livni is a writer and lawyer. She has worked around the world and now *reports* on government and the Supreme Court from Washington, DC._

In deed , you also demonstrate the characteristics of a clown telling jokes and you will be left to interpret an additional characteristic demonstrated by yourself as one whom , when all have seen enough , continues to pile _more on_ top .

** Elaborating The Issue **

There is a technical difference between a legal migrant and an illegal migrant with respect to " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " and it does not take a genius to recognize it . 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
_*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, *and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[4] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[5]_

Domicile (law) - Wikipedia
_In law, *domicile* is the status or attribution of being *a lawful permanent resident* in a particular jurisdiction._


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Mocking The Profundity Of Disingenuous Ability "*
> 
> ** Rocks For Brains **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should talk about blather!  Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English.
> Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward?  I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward.  And you never went to law school.
> I don't have to pretend anything.  You are uneducated and full of yourself.  And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you.  Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not only demonstrating the characteristics of an intellectual coward , but also that of a buffoon .
> 
> ** When This Is a Self Reference **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:*
> 
> An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your idea of grandiose reference written by a constitutional lawyer of the highest degree is an artist , a reporter and a great public defender from florida .
> 
> Ephrat Livni - Wikipedia
> _Livni wrote for the Jerusalem Report[1] in Israel and for ABC News in New York.[1]_
> _In 2007, she began working as assistant public defender in Palm Beach County, providing publicly funded defense counsel to indigents in the criminal justice system in Florida.[9][10]_
> 
> _Ephrat Livni_
> _Ephrat Livni is a writer and lawyer. She has worked around the world and now *reports* on government and the Supreme Court from Washington, DC._
> 
> In deed , you also demonstrate the characteristics of a clown telling jokes and you will be left to interpret an additional characteristic demonstrated by yourself as one whom , when all have seen enough , continues to pile _more on_ top .
> 
> ** Elaborating The Issue **
> 
> There is a technical difference between a legal migrant and an illegal migrant with respect to " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " and it does not take a genius to recognize it .
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
> _*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, *and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[4] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[5]_
> 
> Domicile (law) - Wikipedia
> _In law, *domicile* is the status or attribution of being *a lawful permanent resident* in a particular jurisdiction._
Click to expand...


You keep calling me a coward, but you're the one who lacks the balls to call me out.  If anyone on this board takes you seriously they should sue their brains for non-support.

Your side has been preaching this B.S. now for a decade and half plus on the Internet.  I haven't followed it much longer than that. When you have a history of judges ruling against you and a president that has not issued an Executive Order that can stand up against the court challenges, it should tell you that what you're babbling about is utter horsesh!+.  

You live in this delsuional world where you deny the truth and call people names, projecting what you fear most about yourself.  Now, I've told you that if you want to call me a coward, you should do it to my face.  Yet you persist.  Why?  This is the Internet and you can call people names without having to back up what you say.

Ephrat Livni is a lawyer; you aren't.  Livni is a Jewish liberal; you are an atheist right winger.  So, where does that leave you?  When Alan Dershowitz, another liberal Jewish lawyer, said there were no grounds to impeach Trump on, his words were manna from Heaven since it confirmed what you wanted to believe.

When ill educated sheeple start parroting the National Socialists interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it makes me want to yawn.  So, basically, you like to dabble in idiocy based upon what you've heard on the Internet.  You should pull your head out of your ass and try to study the subject from all sides of the political spectrum.  You've been proven wrong and I understand, you're butt hurt.  

I've proven you wrong and you've reacted like a little child.  Your responses are juvenile and I've accepted your veiled challenge.  All your fancy fonts and colors are smoke and mirrors.  Your side has had over a decade and a half to convince the legislators and the courts of the rightness of your cause.  You have a president that supposedly agrees with you, yet the bottom line is, you keep preaching B.S. and even with a president that pretends to believe the tripe you promote, you can't get the job done.  

Your posts are in error; you lie; you call people out and don't have the balls to follow through; you project; you want to make this a personal pissing match because you lack the ability to have a civil conversation... and you lack the intelligence to ASK QUESTIONS rather than start off hurling accusations.  You're in a bad shape and you are digging your own hole.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Delusional Rants About Reflections In A Mirror "*

** Vacuous Mindless Blubbering All Over The Map Is Too Funny **


Porter Rockwell said:


> ...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Had a double post.  See next post.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Delusional Rants About Reflections In A Mirror "*
> 
> ** Vacuous Mindless Blubbering All Over The Map Is Too Funny **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


So you practice your delusions in front of a mirror. What's new? Do you have a point or do you practice self deprecation as a form of entertaining yourself?

You need to get back on topic. Otherwise the mods may shut this thread down due to your personal B.S. Do you have ANYTHING related to the thread? Or are you addicted to people making an ass of you?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Should Be Closed For Pity Of Your Trite Retorts "*

** Ode To A Pathetic Poser **

There is nothing else to discuss with you troll ; you issued vacuous mindless rants in the mirror , with the mental competence of the implications inferred from the image previously posted .

You repeatedly failed to address the only relevant issue , which is whether the parents of wka were legally allowed to be in the us when he was born , and to then make a discerning deduction that the technicality of law remains an unresolved point of issue for the court to address .


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Should Be Closed For Pity Of Your Trite Retorts "*
> 
> ** Ode To A Pathetic Poser **
> 
> There is nothing else to discuss with you troll ; you issued vacuous mindless rants in the mirror , with the mental competence of the implications inferred from the image previously posted .
> 
> You repeatedly failed to address the only relevant issue , which is whether the parents of wka were legally allowed to be in the us when he was born , and to then make a discerning deduction that the technicality of law remains an unresolved point of issue for the court to address .



You have been quoted the law.  The fact that you choose to post a lot of irrelevant fluff in order to cover that up won't change the truth.

Children born in the United States whose parents are undocumented are issued a birth certificate and a National Identity Card / Socialist Surveillance Number.  They are citizens.  No law can uncitizen them.  

If the courts were to go along with Trump and say one must be the child of parents who entered the United States properly, what happens to the MILLIONS of people who are police, military, business owners, doctors, scientists, etc.?   You cannot pass an ex post facto law. So, what happens?  

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Unlawful U.S. Immigrants Remains an Open Question - Just Security

Monk-Eye, the courts will be looking at this issue very shortly. If you'd like to wage a real bet $10,000  minimum on the outcome, PM me.


----------



## Gdjjr

Hot dang? Intriguing, enlightening, entertaining and informative- it don't get much better folks-


----------



## emilynghiem

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



Hi IM2 and thanks for starting this thread on a good and valuable (or invaluable) topic.

I will go back and post "Winner" on your OP for the content and topic,
though I disagree that what you post means something negative.
I think there are good ways to interpret the Original Constitution
that do not cause the conflicts you bring up.

1. First there is nothing wrong with altering and reforming the Constitutional structures, govt and process by either
A. following the given protocols for Amendment (which doesn't negate the ORIGINAL Constitution but follows it)
B. working alongside and adding more institutions or process in ways that aren't prohibited or in conflict with the Constitution
such as structuring a facilitation and representation process between political parties or media groups that are both OUTSIDE the Constitution,
where this doesn't negate anything WITHIN the Constitution

Thus, there are ways of "altering" government that neither require abolishing the Constitution or negating/defying it,
but can either work WITHIN the given process or ALONGSIDE Constitutional Govt without conflict.

This isn't either/or.
So the ORIGINALISTS can still interpret and enforce the standards they follow "literally"
and this doesn't conflict with reforms that either use the Constitutional process or reform
institutions outside the government which still allow for governmental reforms (such as
by setting up nonprofit structures that transfer programs from govt to localized management).

2. as for what the Constitution means to different people, by facilitating agreed policies and solutions
between people and groups with different beliefs, the issues of language and interpretation of terms used
will get resolved in the process.

Fix the problems first, agree on a goal or solution, then the legal and political language will follow.

It's perfectly natural to have people and groups with different political beliefs on the meaning,
same as with other religions, and Constitutionalism (and Socialism) are both Political Religions.

Of course we are going to have differences.

So if we follow the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, then govt should not
be abused to DICTATE political religions or beliefs, but people have freedom of
choice and conscience to pursue and exercise the beliefs and affiliations which represent them.

In short, it would be in conflict with the very spirit of the Constitution to 
negate, dictate, regulate or prohibit the beliefs of those who don't hold the same beliefs about the Constitution.

So neither could the originalists impose their interpretation and beliefs,
but consensus should be sought which represents the beliefs and free choice of individuals.

That's why I say apply and exercise the "freedom of speech and of the press" and the 
"right to petition to redress grievances" so that consensual solutions and policies are formed,
and then the language needed to document those can be agreed upon between these groups.

We don't have to agree on beliefs in order to communicate common solutions.

I don't see this as an obstruction to have different beliefs and interpretations of Constitutional laws and process.
It's natural that every organized religion has always had at least TWO major denominations.
This is a natural development, and the process normally involves the two camps working
as complements to check and balance each other so that the policies agreed on between
them reflect the entire spectrum.  

We may have to "reform" our attitudes and perception of these conflicting ideological beliefs and parties.

Instead of pitting one against the other as competing to make the other wrong and to blame for problems,
we would do better to approach this as an issue of self-representation and letting the parties represent the
beliefs of those members who consent to that representation.

By agreeing to recognize the validity and sovereignty of each party, similar to religions having the
right to their own policies paid for by their own members, then we CAN communicate and facilitate
exchange of ideas, both problems/objections and solutions/objectives, and formulate where parties
AGREE what should be common public policy.

We can have both the diversity where we fund our own agenda and beliefs,
and the unity where we AGREE on policy and on funding programs through govt.

Again, this isn't either/or.

IM2 would it help if I "blame the white male culture" for this habit of thinking that everything has to be framed
as "either/or" or "them vs. us" or "my territory turf or pack vs. yours."

What you blame as "double standard abuse of individualism" I would agree with you
if you are talking about THIS pattern of setting up one side to be wrong in order to prove another side.

If that whole pattern is what you fault when you blame "individualism on white men or white culture"
I would agree with you this is counterproductive and destructive for the purpose of political exploitation.

So if you are engaging in the same, I would ask you to refrain from
this "bad influence of white culture" to set up conflicting sides like this
in order to pimp for points and gain political leverage over others.

Please do not fall for this trap, which I am happy to blame on "white men's culture"
if that's what it takes to dissuade you from this political "divide and conquer" strategy.


----------



## Gdjjr

^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ is the epitome of Individual effort striving to leave his space a little better than he found it and creating the Greater Good naturally.

Making rules (laws) restricting others, especially for grievance, doesn't compliment redress and, in fact, creates animosity to widen a divide. The above should be mandatory reading by the District of Criminal legislative body and taught in school- not just referenced, but, discussed until ingrained in the sponges for brains.


----------



## emilynghiem

Gdjjr said:


> ^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ is the epitome of Individual effort striving to leave his space a little better than he found it and creating the Greater Good naturally.
> 
> Making rules (laws) restricting others, especially for grievance, doesn't compliment redress and, in fact, creates animosity to widen a divide. The above should be mandatory reading by the District of Criminal legislative body and taught in school- not just referenced, but, discussed until ingrained in the sponges for brains.



Thank you Gdjjr I totally agree we need consistent Constitutional education and civic training in schools,
and I would even recommend to our Governor to make it part of citizenship. Virginia has a citizenship test
for all its citizens, and I think that could be used to set up agreed education and conflict resolution training
to help parties enforce such programs per county district and party precinct. Totally agree that we need
mass education, but in an organized way that doesn't enable disinformation propaganda, but corrects the misperceptions.

I believe this would reduce crime, abuses and corruption; empower citizens to screen out root causes of
crime and to address and correct political problems at first sign of abuse of power; and help us separate
resources so every group (especially political parties) can fund, follow and fulfill their own platforms
without forcing that on others who don't believe in the same things. We need this for full liberation,
in order to realize fully informed consent, and a "more perfect" system of democratic due process.

We will still have conflicts and errors, and still find areas of abuse, wrongs and crimes; but instead of
fighting to project blame while denying wrongdoing for political favor, we can work together to correct
these problems so that everyone benefits, especially taxpayers who deserve a break from all the debts and damages.

Thanks Gdjjr and I hope to organize people from all parties to meet, set up cross-party councils,
and get this educational outreach set up as a proposal to the Governor for protecting taxpayers' interests and beliefs
from infringement by political parties abusing federal govt to discriminate by creed, abridging rights and equal protections,
and "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" which I argue is FELONIOUS. Thus taxpayers are owed criminal restitution
for the costs and reimbursement of all tax money wasted on unconstitutional abuses that we didn't authorize or consent to.

Happy New Year to you, and let's make this one a GOOD ONE!
Yours truly, Emily


----------



## Gdjjr

emilynghiem said:


> Thus taxpayers are owed criminal restitution
> for the costs and reimbursement of all tax money wasted on unconstitutional abuses that we didn't authorize or consent to.


This I would sign onto- everything else is too subjective, IMO. I'm open to suggestion, but, I refuse a broad group think regardless of its intent. 

In order to progress humanity people have to understand *one simple* principle/philosophy- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- all the rules, laws and different demands exacerbate the confusion- as is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We are living proof, and I'm not even religious. People live in hell, or heaven, depending on their Individual (often times group) perceptions which is reflected in the choices they make. Some consciously, some unconsciously. People who allow others to think for them do so because it is ingrained at an early age that an authority figure knows best for everyone, despite the evidence to the contrary. Sadly, that evidence is not recognized until later in life and it is a daunting task to accept responsibility for ones actions when authority figures seem to believe, and promote thay have the authority or power to absolve that responsibility with someone else's money or agreement by the group.

Demanding compliance is still demanding another accept what another Individual or group thinks, or acts- and typically groups change and evolve leaving behind what was intended which naturally entails disrespecting the Individuals right to choose for himself.
Nothing is easy. Nor does instant gratification work. It's taken a long, long time to reach where we are as people. It won't be fixed over night or legislatively. It's a simple mathematical equation. You can't build or rebuild near as fast as you can tear down.
Consensus requires everyone gains. Demanding it won't make it happen which is where *discussion* applies. Not more rules or laws restricting others from acting as they please. Those who make the decision to act immorally, not always illegally, and rarely is legally moral are punished accordingly- it's already against the laws of nature (and most men) to cause harm to another or take what wasn't earned. That's it. All the restrictions placed on others, usually with the blessing (rhetoric) of good intent, often as not makes criminals of those who have caused no harm to another. Result: Issue Confused more, not resolved.


----------



## regent

The Constitution has not changed but through the courts and amendments. Yet it always seems to be current and up to date. What has changed is our interpretation and needs for it to  change and be up to date.  One of the books I just started is on the Constitutional changes that occurred between 1877 and 1917.


----------



## regent

regent said:


> The Constitution has not changed but through the courts and amendments. Yet it always seems to be current and up to date. What has changed is our interpretation and needs for it to  change and be up to date.  One of the books I just started is on the Constitutional changes that occurred between 1877 and 1917.


Time to move on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Crap.
> 
> Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
> The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.
Click to expand...


The "power" they have is to explain the intentions of the Framers.  And since they were written BY the Framers, I'd say they're accurate.

But amusingly lame attempt at a straw man.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

IM2 said:


> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic



True enough, the right is originalist and wants govt to have only the original enumerated powers. Left is libcommie and wants a living communist Constitution that bares no resemblance to original Constitution.


----------



## BJG

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
Click to expand...



Language. Respect, show some.


----------



## miketx

BJG said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
Click to expand...

Why? You vermin are destroying the country.


----------



## BJG

Porter Rockwell said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your name calling.  You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names?  Fuck you.
> 
> Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws.  Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order?  No.  So, it appears YOU would be the moron.  The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court.  Have you?
> 
> Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of.  Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over.  So stick it.  Stupid slut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!".  You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.
> 
> I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you.  The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them.  Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned?  No?  Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.
> 
> . . . And with your "Aha!  I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.
> 
> You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits.  Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purchasers who owned a legally manufactured product are criminals today if they still own it and the Constitution requires the government to give just compensation to the bump stock corporations.
> 
> You can keep calling me names; it just shows what a low class, filthy, lying, uneducated stupid bitch you really are.  Makes you wonder if your mother had any children that lived...  if so, your existence may make a good court-room argument for abortion.
Click to expand...




I joined this forum TODAY. Most of what I have seen here is either grand-standing or vicious personal attacks. I though I was joining a forum of educated, decent adults. Apparently I was way off base.


----------



## BJG

miketx said:


> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You vermin are destroying the country.
Click to expand...




Real classy. Calling the new guy vermin. I can see there's no use in continuing to post here. Y'all are some uneducated, redneck, hateful mofos. Bye.


----------



## miketx

BJG said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You vermin are destroying the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real classy. Calling the new guy vermin. I can see there's no use in continuing to post here. Y'all are some uneducated, redneck, hateful mofos. Bye.
Click to expand...

Tissue?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

BJG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this *provided *that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason?  And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What idiocy!  Here is the situation you have today:
> 
> Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court.  The question reaches the United States Supreme Court.  Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
> 
> But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision.  Now you are a criminal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lo and behold!!  Such things aren't retroactive, moron.  THAT would be against the law.  Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case.  Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled.  If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the *LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES *which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the* EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT* (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
> 
> If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is *NOT* the legislative department and you are *NOT* stuck with a law you don't like.  You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench.  It's not their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about.  The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases.  And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law.  Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach.  *IF there is no new science* that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade.  If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved."  1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time.  Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your name calling.  You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names?  Fuck you.
> 
> Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws.  Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order?  No.  So, it appears YOU would be the moron.  The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court.  Have you?
> 
> Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of.  Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over.  So stick it.  Stupid slut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!".  You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.
> 
> I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you.  The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them.  Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned?  No?  Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.
> 
> . . . And with your "Aha!  I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.
> 
> You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits.  Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purchasers who owned a legally manufactured product are criminals today if they still own it and the Constitution requires the government to give just compensation to the bump stock corporations.
> 
> You can keep calling me names; it just shows what a low class, filthy, lying, uneducated stupid bitch you really are.  Makes you wonder if your mother had any children that lived...  if so, your existence may make a good court-room argument for abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I joined this forum TODAY. Most of what I have seen here is either grand-standing or vicious personal attacks. I though I was joining a forum of educated, decent adults. Apparently I was way off base.
Click to expand...


I actually could not agree with you more.  Let me explain this to you, Top.

You can come here with all the greatest of intentions.  You can be nice and not attack some of these posters.  They will attack you, call you names, and never let you post in peace.  So, you learn how to fight back or get eaten alive.

I was in a thread, one I started, and it went over 1200 posts.  A guy accused me of personal attacks and, in that many posts, somebody like yourself would come along from time to time and direct something at me.  I was obliged to go through the entire 1200 + posts and show, post by post WHO initiated the first personal attack and how many times I had tried to end the pissing match and continue on.  One guy has at least two accounts.  Two people were banned for having posting under two different accounts.  The mods have to know by now who some of these sockpuppet guys are, but they drive a lot of posters here with their daily attack posts.  Sop this one guy made it his daily ritual to try and rip me a new asshole.  None of them have the balls to say this stuff to your face.

The thing of it is, I make it a policy NOT to draw first blood, but after a few attack posts, I let the poster know how I feel in PM.  That way, if they have a personal issue, they are given an opportunity to do something.  I report the posts.  But, this is a brutal place.  If you're not willing to fight back and not willing to get in the mud and go the distance, this board is not for you - unless you're determined to learn how to defend yourself.  Some of these nutjobs are not worth fighting back with after a certain point as the thread will come down to you and the ego driven with their sockpuppets.  Once that happens, you can safely leave as few, if any people will read a pissing match beyond a certain point.


----------



## justinacolmena

IM2 said:


> the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution).


If the Finns have *sisu*, what makes them uniquely Finnish, then the Declaration of Independence must inevitably be part of our *Constitution (=sisu)* in the sense that it is, fundamentally, part of what makes* us uniquely American.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.


----------



## TNHarley

BJG said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
Click to expand...

IM2 is the lowest of the low.
Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

TNHarley said:


> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
Click to expand...


I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.
Click to expand...

And there are a lot of people like Porter who have nothing to say and spend all of their time talking about debating and talking about other people but never debating


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are a lot of people like Porter who have nothing to say and spend all of their time talking about debating and talking about other people but never debating
Click to expand...


#204
What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are a lot of people like Porter who have nothing to say and spend all of their time talking about debating and talking about other people but never debating
Click to expand...


There are pathological liars like Edward who got lost on a discussion board and can't figure out if this is a debate forum or Twitter.  Actually it's neither and Edward LOST any pretend debate he had with me the first time when he sunk to the low of calling me names.  Rather than crawl in the gutter with him at that point, I told him that was not the right thing to do and he lost any pretend debate the moment he made it personal and started with the name calling.  Since we're not in a debate (and he cannot debate) AND since he don't want to show proper respect, I am willing to meet him on his level and tell him that he is one dumb mother fucker.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.



What are you babbling about?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact. If you don’t understand please ask a specific question. Thanks


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact. If you don’t understand please ask a specific question. Thanks
Click to expand...


What in the HELL are you talking about?  There is nothing for me to ask.  I'm not in the camp with liberals and don't give a rat's ass.  You're posting some straw man argument that I have no interest in.  Okay, a specific question:  What does any of that have to do with me?


----------



## BJG

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are a lot of people like Porter who have nothing to say and spend all of their time talking about debating and talking about other people but never debating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #204
> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.
Click to expand...

 
Explain how anything in the USC makes liberalism ILLEGAL? enlighten us poor peasants, you "god"....


----------



## BJG

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Democratic Party have proven that they cannot operate within the constitution.




And your fake "leader" would hold a party while burning it.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

BJG said:


> Explain how anything in the USC makes liberalism ILLEGAL? enlighten us poor peasants, you "god"....



Very very simple. That you don't know it already is testimony to how far the liberal subversion of our country has progressed.

The Constitution is designed to limit central govt to the few enumerated powers described therein in order to maintain freedom from liberal central govt.

The 9th and 10th Amendments were added afterwards to reinforce the idea of freedom so that there would  be no mistake about the Constitution's meaning.

Liberals are totally opposed to freedom and so spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and more recently voted for Sanders/Warren.  

If you still don't understand please feel free to ask questions. You don't have to be a liberal the rest of your life.


----------



## TNHarley

BJG said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for THAT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and it shows you are wrong.
> 
> Now stop harassing me and accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always laugh when people apply their own interpretations to things they read. Its intellectually dishonest.
> Go piss on another tree faggot. This tree dont care for your statist bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Language. Respect, show some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is the lowest of the low.
> Plus, i don't need someone telling me how to act. Especially on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you about IM2, but somebody should begin stepping in and saying something about how people act on the Internet.   It's hard not to tolerate IM2 on the board and not get down to his level, but the lower class of keyboard pecking commandos seem to rule most social media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are a lot of people like Porter who have nothing to say and spend all of their time talking about debating and talking about other people but never debating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #204
> What is the myth? The Bill of Rights( 9&10th) make liberalism illegal in America. It’s not a myth just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how anything in the USC makes liberalism ILLEGAL? enlighten us poor peasants, you "god"....
Click to expand...

Todays "liberalism" is complete statism which goes against the USC


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

BJG said:


> And your fake "leader" would hold a party while burning it.....



no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how anything in the USC makes liberalism ILLEGAL? enlighten us poor peasants, you "god"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very very simple. That you don't know it already is testimony to how far the liberal subversion of our country has progressed.
> 
> The Constitution is designed to limit central govt to the few enumerated powers described therein in order to maintain freedom from liberal central govt.
> 
> The 9th and 10th Amendments were added afterwards to reinforce the idea of freedom so that there would  be no mistake about the Constitution's meaning.
> 
> Liberals are totally opposed to freedom and so spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and more recently voted for Sanders/Warren.
> 
> If you still don't understand please feel free to ask questions. You don't have to be a liberal the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


You hate the Constitution more than anyone.  Your beef with me is that I showed you where the *ONLY* authority the feds have over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship. All the other laws are unconstitutional and a usurpation of powers that belong to the individual states... using your Tenth Amendment argument as proof.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> BJG said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your fake "leader" would hold a party while burning it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no idea what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...


No kidding.  English still isn't your first language.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

TNHarley said:


> Todays "liberalism" is complete statism which goes against the USC



yes, odd isn't it how free speech, religion ,guns were written well enough to still have meaning today while the basic concept of freedom was written so poorly into the Constitution that liberals can get away with ignoring it. Our Founders didn't know that they had to write for children or perhaps how unnatural freedom was.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> No kidding.  English still isn't your first language.


do you agree with 9th and 10th amendments??


----------



## TNHarley

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Todays "liberalism" is complete statism which goes against the USC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, odd isn't it how free speech, religion ,guns were written well enough to still have meaning today while the basic concept of freedom was written so poorly into the Constitution that liberals can get away with ignoring it. Our Founders didn't know that they had to write for children or perhaps how unnatural freedom was.
Click to expand...

Im sure they didnt bank on americans literally begging in the streets for the fed gov to take away their rights either.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  English still isn't your first language.
> 
> 
> 
> do you agree with 9th and 10th amendments??
Click to expand...

 Of course I agree with the 9th and 10th Amendments.  I'm the only realconstitutionalist on this board.  I take the bad with the good.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> You hate the Constitution more than anyone.


If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> Of course I agree with the 9th and 10th Amendments.


 what about them do you like?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

TNHarley said:


> Im sure they didnt bank on americans literally begging in the streets for the fed gov to take away their rights either.



Well I guess then they, sadly, didn't bank on human nature!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the Constitution more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???
Click to expand...


If you have the money to cover the bet, I do.  Do you want to revisit the thread where you rode my ass with nothing comments for .... how many posts?  Don't forget, I'm coming to the table with nearly four decades of experience - and a HELL of a lot of it legal experience.  I've forgotten more than you're capable of understanding.  And when I take a position, I'm having to accept rulings I don't agree with.  So, this is knowledge based, not what is popular.  

We can get some rules going and do this somewhere.  It will have to be time based so you don't get to spend time cheating with the Internet and getting outside advice.  You pick the topic, we have a time limit on the responses and see who turns in the most *fact based answers with supporting evidence *(court cases, references to what people in power / authority said or ruled), etc.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I agree with the 9th and 10th Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> what about them do you like?
Click to expand...


Our Rights cannot be denied; if it isn't in the Constitution, the authority rests with the states or the people respectively.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> I showed you where the *ONLY* authority the feds have over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship. All the other laws are unconstitutional and a usurpation of powers that belong to the individual states... using your Tenth Amendment argument as proof.


seems like trivial matter compared to our issue here which is liberal usurpation of our basic freedoms. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> Our Rights cannot be denied; if it isn't in the Constitution, the authority rests with the states or the people respectively.


 I see, and which rights do you feel are most threatened by the treasonous liberals?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the Constitution more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have the money to cover the bet, I do.  Do you want to revisit the thread where you rode my ass with nothing comments for .... how many posts?  Don't forget, I'm coming to the table with nearly four decades of experience - and a HELL of a lot of it legal experience.  I've forgotten more than you're capable of understanding.  And when I take a position, I'm having to accept rulings I don't agree with.  So, this is knowledge based, not what is popular.
> 
> We can get some rules going and do this somewhere.  It will have to be time based so you don't get to spend time cheating with the Internet and getting outside advice.  You pick the topic, we have a time limit on the responses and see who turns in the most *fact based answers with supporting evidence *(court cases, references to what people in power / authority said or ruled), etc.
Click to expand...

Mr. soap opera strikes again


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you where the *ONLY* authority the feds have over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization is citizenship. All the other laws are unconstitutional and a usurpation of powers that belong to the individual states... using your Tenth Amendment argument as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> seems like trivial matter compared to our issue here which is liberal usurpation of our basic freedoms. Do you understand?
Click to expand...


What I understand don't fit onto bumper stickers.  What I understand is that the left excels at political guerrilla warfare and cons the right into doing their dirty work and the right never even considers the possibility that they are being conned.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Rights cannot be denied; if it isn't in the Constitution, the authority rests with the states or the people respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, and which rights do you feel are most threatened by the treasonous liberals?
Click to expand...


The liberals do not hide the fact that they stand *AGAINST* every foundational principle upon which the Constitution was founded.

*  They are against the Freedom of Religion
*  They would confiscate every privately held firearm in the United States
*  They claim they are for "_choice_" and support abortion while telling us we should be dependent upon the government for our health care AND trust the government to take care of our health needs with socialized medicine.  Some "_choice_," huh?
*  The liberals are pandering to every race, color, creed, religion, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and culture *EXCEPT* that of the Posterity of the founders / framers of this country.  For the Posterity of the founders / framers of this country the liberals want to erase the history of Posterity by taking down their flags, statues, monuments, memorials; changing the names of streets and government buildings; taking the faces of our nations founders off the currency; prosecuting anyone that challenges the status quo with _"hate crime_" laws.  It appears they don't like honest criticism
*  The immigration laws discriminate against people coming from White / Christian countries and give the third world a decided advantage in changing the demographics of America.

I know how you feel about long posts, but I'll settle for that sample of why I oppose liberalism. * HOWEVER*, before they get their boxers in a bunch, they should ask me what I think of modern "_conservatism_."


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hate the Constitution more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have the money to cover the bet, I do.  Do you want to revisit the thread where you rode my ass with nothing comments for .... how many posts?  Don't forget, I'm coming to the table with nearly four decades of experience - and a HELL of a lot of it legal experience.  I've forgotten more than you're capable of understanding.  And when I take a position, I'm having to accept rulings I don't agree with.  So, this is knowledge based, not what is popular.
> 
> We can get some rules going and do this somewhere.  It will have to be time based so you don't get to spend time cheating with the Internet and getting outside advice.  You pick the topic, we have a time limit on the responses and see who turns in the most *fact based answers with supporting evidence *(court cases, references to what people in power / authority said or ruled), etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. soap opera strikes again
Click to expand...


That is what I have against your dumb ass.  Anything over four words is too long and you're too fucking stupid to read a couple of paragraphs.  You have the lowest IQ of anyone on this board save of the troll known as IM2.  Are you sure you aren't him posting under a different board name?  Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> cons the right into doing their dirty work



for 42nd time can you tell your most important example of this or must you admit it is BS with your silence or attempts to change subject.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> the liberals want to erase the history of Posterity



They think it is an evil history. why do you disagree?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> cons the right into doing their dirty work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for 42nd time can you tell your most important example of this or must you admit it is BS with your silence or attempts to change subject.
Click to expand...


For the 42nd time then, I'm not repeating questions previously asked AND later referenced AGAIN for your dumb ass.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the liberals want to erase the history of Posterity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They think it is an evil history. why do you disagree?
Click to expand...


How many people in the world have benefited off this country's sacrifices?  It's evil to feed the world, fight their wars and get our own killed, and provide humanitarian aid all over the place.  Nah.  Don't think so.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> cons the right into doing their dirty work


For the 43rd time do you have example or just more of your BS?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> It's evil to feed the world, fight their wars and get our own killed, and provide humanitarian aid all over the place.  Nah.  Don't think so.



the liberal  feels  homophobia, slavery,  indian genocide, sexism, imperialism, capitalism more define the country.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> cons the right into doing their dirty work
> 
> 
> 
> For the 43rd time do you have example or just more of your BS?
Click to expand...


Since I have not posted BS, only words you don't understand, you get the same answer.  If you want someone to respond to you, your dumb ass needs to learn how to be respectful.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evil to feed the world, fight their wars and get our own killed, and provide humanitarian aid all over the place.  Nah.  Don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the liberal  feels  homophobia, slavery,  indian genocide, sexism, imperialism, capitalism more define the country.
Click to expand...


That is because liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## theHawk

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


Herman Cain? 
So many fallacies.

The Democrats are Marxists pigs that hate the constitution, but you’re  here ranting about a strawman argument about conservatives and the constitution, as if it were something you cherish.

No one is buying your bullshit.


----------



## MadChemist

IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic



Madison in Federalist #45 stated....

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.  

Continuing...



IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic



It isn't clear what the argument is here.

And there might as well be a discussion about the General Welfare Clause.

Madison was very clear when he stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  (Federalist 45)

The necessary and proper clause as well as the General Welfare clause make it clear that congress can do what it needs to fullfill it's responsibilities as defined by the Constitution.  

So, by defining those powers, they have very much created a limit on what the federal government can do.

The argument by Garrett Epps, if it is within these boundaries, is acceptable.

However, if he is arguing that the powers delegated are not few and defined, he would be wrong.


----------



## Overtime Paycheck

IM2 said:


> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."


Idealistically that sounds great but realistically that is impossible.


----------



## Regent23

The Constitution is a liberal document establishing a nation based somewhat on the Age of Reason or Age of Enlightenment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

IM2 said:


> Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"


I agree that this is a myth.

That's why I don't care how authoritarian the justice's political views, as long as the justice respects the Constitution and the amendment process.

THERE IS NO LIVING CONSTITUTION.   If it does not work today, it MUST be AMENDED, not manipulated.  

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

IM2 said:


> *Amendments....*


Agreed.  Don't let these bastards, any of them, get away with re-writing the Constitution.  If an amendment is needed, it will happen.  Otherwise, forget it.

Now, "shall not be infringed" should mean what?

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

IM2 said:


> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*



More accurately, The Right and our genius Founders believed in their written Constitution. Had our Founders gone to the American people and said, please ratify this Constitution; it is a living document which means anything you want it to mean, it would not have gotten one single vote!!


----------



## MadChemist

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that this is a myth.
> 
> That's why I don't care how authoritarian the justice's political views, as long as the justice respects the Constitution and the amendment process.
> 
> THERE IS NO LIVING CONSTITUTION.   If it does not work today, it MUST be AMENDED, not manipulated.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


O.K., so I am lost.

That is the myth you say is a myth, then you repeat it.....

I think we agree....but I am confused by your statement.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Agreed.  Don't let these bastards, any of them, get away with re-writing the Constitution.



They are able to rewrite it simply by ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments. I think Thomas is the only one who takes Constitution seriously.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Regent23 said:


> The Constitution is a liberal document



You mean a very very conservative document that strictly limits the size and scope of government to the granted enumerated powers. This is why modern big government socialist  liberals hate the Constitution and see it as a living or communist Constitution that can mean anything including the opposite of what the Founders intended.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

IM2 said:


> it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution



What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy???  The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders  had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it  takes away from the states and the people.


----------



## MadChemist

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy???  The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders  had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it  takes away from the states and the people.
Click to expand...


Madison was very clear on this subject.

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


Thanks.  Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics.  Right wing fantasy is all they have.  And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristopherABrown' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are really, really hard to get passed.  As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And certainly way the hell smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?
> 
> C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state.  Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, an effort at accountability.  Commendable!  I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.
> 
> Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple.  I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing.  From those, I derive this.
> 
> The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.
> 
> Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall?  Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.
Click to expand...

It is about free political speech.  And to petition for redress of grievances.  Our First Amendment is first not second, for a reason.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy???  The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders  had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it  takes away from the states and the people.
Click to expand...

It is the right wing who have no understanding of how our Constitutional form of Government is supposed to work.  The proof is, any implied right wing fantasy will do for them.  Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.


----------



## hadit

IM2 said:


> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic


"But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument."

Ironic poster is ironic. You do realize that is EXACTLY what you are attempting to do, right? Thread after thread, post after post, comment after comment is based on the premise that you know what somebody else believes.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can defend your own BELIEF in right to life, but not at the expense of someone else's equal right to believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly gibberish of course. Founders did not think about abortion at all, directly or indirectly, so Constitution does not address it. If you want  Federal approval, an amendment to Constitution is clearly necessary. Do you understand??
Click to expand...

It should be a private question of the subjective value of morals for each individual person, not law established for purely political purposes.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy???  The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders  had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it  takes away from the states and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right wing who have no understanding of how our Constitutional form of Government is supposed to work.  The proof is, any implied right wing fantasy will do for them.  Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.
Click to expand...

And there you go again, right back into the failed mantra.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A poster claims there is no Right to Life in the Constitution.  Is that an implied Right in the Fifth Amendment?
Click to expand...

Natural born, is what our Constitution expresses.


----------



## MadChemist

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics.  Right wing fantasy is all they have.  And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.
Click to expand...


Epps, in now way supports that argument in his Atlantic article.  The article is condensed from a book he wrote on the same subject.  

Now, as to the claim that nobody should take rightwingers seriously....just because they insist they are right (can only assume you mean they insist with no proof)....just because they are on the right wing....where is your proof of this claim.

Seems your statement is somewhat falling into the same trap.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

MadChemist said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy???  The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders  had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it  takes away from the states and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison was very clear on this subject.
> 
> Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined.
Click to expand...

Yes so this makes liberals and socialists like Biden/Harris illegal or unconstitutional. How can they be allowed to run for office?


----------



## anynameyouwish

westwall said:


> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.




and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!


----------



## westwall

anynameyouwish said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.
> 
> people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago
> 
> our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!
> 
> I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!
Click to expand...








No, they don't.  The FOUNDERS set up a system for change.  That is why this country is still not a socialist shithole.


----------



## MadChemist

westwall said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.
> 
> people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago
> 
> our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!
> 
> I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The FOUNDERS set up a system for change.  That is why this country is still not a socialist shithole.
Click to expand...


While we certainly have not behaved accordingly, the constitution was sold as a document that set up a federal government whose purpose was to preserve and protect the union.  It was also to present the union as a single entity to those outside our borders.

What was to happen within the union was to primarily be up to the individual states with minimal interference from the federal government.


----------



## danielpalos

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.
> 
> *Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'*
> _Garrett Epps_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."
> 
> This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."
> 
> First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.
> 
> *Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"*
> 
> In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."
> 
> A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."
> 
> The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.
> 
> The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.
> 
> Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics.  Right wing fantasy is all they have.  And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Epps, in now way supports that argument in his Atlantic article.  The article is condensed from a book he wrote on the same subject.
> 
> Now, as to the claim that nobody should take rightwingers seriously....just because they insist they are right (can only assume you mean they insist with no proof)....just because they are on the right wing....where is your proof of this claim.
> 
> Seems your statement is somewhat falling into the same trap.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not been following the arguments I have been having with them.  Ask them the same question you asked me.  See what response you get.  Nothing but fallacy, not any valid arguments.


----------



## Gdjjr

Left or right, up or down. Words mean things. The purpose of the constitution is laid out in the pre-amble-

The Bill of Rights are lines to not be crossed by the federal gov't.. There is but one caveat in them-


*Amendment IV*
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, (caveat>*but upon probable cause*, < caveat) supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The Patriot Act, supported by BOTH sides eviscerated the 4th amendment.

An inert piece of paper cannot. Live. Period. There are rules for changing the constitution and I don't recall seeing an alleged, or supposed, voter mandate as one of them.

BOTH sides are equally guilty of usurping authority. BOTH sides subscribe to the Neocon policy of world wide hegemony. BOTH sides subscribe to borrow to spend. NEITHER side works to secure our Liberty. BOTH write laws to restrict Liberty, which is contrary to the explanation of the pre-amble- BOTH sides subscribe to Public Education and not a word is said, or implied, about a Dept of Education in the original document.

SMH- Public Education has failed big time.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.
> 
> people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago
> 
> our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!
> 
> I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!
Click to expand...

well actually you have to pledge allegiance to the constitution to hold office in America. Our Constitution was written by Geniuses So if you have a better idea than our founding father geniuses why not tell us what it is? What are you so afraid of. Is your better idea socialism even though it’s just killed 120, million people.l? It is very very embarrassing indeed.


----------



## MadChemist

anynameyouwish said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.
> 
> people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago
> 
> our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!
> 
> I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!
Click to expand...


What dictates did the founders give that you believe we are bound by ?

It isn't the "rules" they gave us.  It is the processes and the division of powers they gave us that are so important.


----------



## justinacolmena

MadChemist said:


> Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined


That is as it should be, of course.

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.


----------



## Gdjjr

justinacolmena said:


> But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments,


There are lots of "excuses", but very few reasons. "The people" hold the control of the elected. They are elected after all. That there is a great deal of apathy is a multi-faceted abomination that begins at home and continues in the Public Education system- education/schools has become centers for conformity. Uniform mandates heads the list and dress codes is a close second. Home is a place to eat (sometimes) and sleep- a place to hang your hat.
The Sports emphasis epitomizes the win at all cost mentality vs what should be taught to achieve a proper education. There is nothing wrong with winning, BTW. But, in school the emphasis should be on reading, writing and arithmetic. Sports are, by nature, recreational. Extra curricular. Extra being key. Not an *a* or *the* focal point.
Brain exercise is more important- the body does what the brain tells it to do, good, bad and/or indifferent.
Apathy is born of contentment. Contentment is gained from acquisition of stuff- stuff can be replaced but quality of life is an on going commitment and never really fully achieved. It is a big part of the meaning that should be discussed in a proper education, the words of the Declaration of Independence- to start, Independence is not spelled co-dependent. Yet, co-dependent is where we are with the Nanny State (local to federal) our benefactor- simply due to the "abomination" of improper education, at home and the centers for conformity.


----------



## justinacolmena

Gdjjr said:


> That there is a great deal of apathy … Apathy is born of contentment.


The reason for the apathy is that people are hesitant to stick their necks out and get involved in "local" politics when City Hall is running a guillotine.


----------



## Gdjjr

justinacolmena said:


> The reason for the apathy is that people are hesitant to stick their necks out and get involved in "local" politics when City Hall is running a guillotine.


I'd call that scared- apathy comes from either contentment or not giving a flying fuck or a lot of both.


----------



## MadChemist

justinacolmena said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined
> 
> 
> 
> That is as it should be, of course.
> 
> But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.
Click to expand...


In theory (and I emphasize that) the citizens of each state should be watching their individual stores.

I am concerned that with all the focus on federal politics...the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.


----------



## justinacolmena

MadChemist said:


> the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.


The City Hall budget is too fat. There's a bipartisan Democrat/RINO ballot box, but there are no options short of revolution and bloodshed to control the size of local government or limit its exponential growth or progressive encroachment upon the private lives of law-abiding citizens.


----------



## MadChemist

justinacolmena said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> The City Hall budget is too fat. There's a bipartisan Democrat/RINO ballot box, but there are no options short of revolution and bloodshed to control the size of local government or limit its exponential growth or progressive encroachment upon the private lives of law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


I hope that isn't the case (that revolution and bloodshed are our only options).

I would ask if you can get information on city spending ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

justinacolmena said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined
> 
> 
> 
> That is as it should be, of course.
> 
> But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.
Click to expand...


Well, sadly,  you might say our Founders were tyrants who wanted a tiny Federal government so it would not interfere with their local tyrannies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> *Amendments....*


what does it take to get amendments passed?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
> The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
> Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.
> 
> MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to follow the Constitution's case law,  something Republicans are loath to do.
Click to expand...

you'll say that until the supreme court has a 7-2 conservative bench 
Because of judicial activism, the Constitution has been altered to fit the leftist's agenda


----------



## MadChemist

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined
> 
> 
> 
> That is as it should be, of course.
> 
> But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sadly,  you might say our Founders were tyrants who wanted a tiny Federal government so it would not interfere with their local tyrannies.
Click to expand...


What point are you arguing ?

If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control.  That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.

Your comment was that "you might say".  I would never say that.  And I think such a statement is incorrect.

Our founders first sought common ground with England and only revolted when they felt they had no choice.  They then tried the Articles of Confederation, which made the constitution look like a communist manifesto.  They then moved to the constitution.

Again, I ask.  What point are you arguing ?


----------



## justinacolmena

MadChemist said:


> If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.


The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.

The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.


----------



## MadChemist

justinacolmena said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.
> 
> 
> 
> The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.
> 
> The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.
Click to expand...




justinacolmena said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control. That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.
> 
> 
> 
> The overarching federal government exercises its powers of totalitarianism through "tiny tyrannies" of City Hall in every village and township across America.
> 
> The Mayor who puts on a such show of insubordination to higher powers in actually in strict obedience to a hidden Deep State shadow government of disaffected feds who will never willingly relax their grip on absolute federal power.
Click to expand...


I suppose it is time for me to ask for an example.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.

Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.


----------



## MadChemist

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.
> 
> Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.



I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.

The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.  

I personally value the concept of federalism and the 10th amendment.  I really would hate to see  that go away.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

MadChemist said:


> I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.
> 
> The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.


No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.


----------



## Gdjjr

It's wonderful to have such a brilliant mind telling us what to know-


----------



## MadChemist

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.
> 
> The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.
Click to expand...


Please point me in the direction of your discussions.  

A link would be good.

But to my point......









						States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
					

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...



					www.cbpp.org
				





Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:



> [T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.  After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

MadChemist said:


> Please point me in the direction of your discussions.







__





						United States Fourth Continental Congress
					

The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





MadChemist said:


> But to my point......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbpp.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.  After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]
Click to expand...

Thank you for these articles, I have not seen them before and they provide the "scholarly" critiques that I can use in substitution for the same criticisms from average citizens that would be dismissed. I'll answer the questions in the discussion I linked.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

MadChemist said:


> If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control.  That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.


 no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.


----------



## Englewood

Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor.  It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.


----------



## Gdjjr

Englewood said:


> Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor. It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.


And the Liberals of the day had to fight with the Conservatives of the day to get the Bill of Rights in it- I seriously doubt that today would be much different- the anti-federalist papers were rebuttal to the federalist, (the conservatives) amongst themselves and lo and behold it seems they were correct in their assessments.


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.


But not federal, or far removed/distant/no skin in the game so to speak. The belief/hope being, locals would hold accountable, its gov't, and through federal representatives have a defender of legal (read laws) that would hopefully help prevent federal tyranny of favoring one over another in commerce and trade.


----------



## Gdjjr

I usually, when discussing the constitution, use the words, "to help prevent" somewhere in my post.

In thinking even more about it, the constitution, I'm not so sure that is the over all case- it is, for the most part, determining how the federal gov't is structured. The Bill of Rights are significant in that we ( a lot of us, me included) believe them to be lines that are not to be crossed by a federal gov't.. They are insignificant in that there is no punishment for those lines being crossed addressed.

So many lines have been crossed it's unbelievable. At least to me. But, I'm not a control freak, except where "I" am concerned. I have no inherent/need desire to control others. "I" am a full time job for me.

It appears, structurally speaking even, the constitution means little to those who swear, _*in the affirmative*_, (ambiguously which I'll point out shortly) to protect and defend- the ambiguity being; "to the best of my ability".
There in lies a caveat- their ability is questionable when looking at History and current events.

There is but one caveat in the constitution that I recall. Maybe someone else can point out another. That one caveat is in the 4th amendment- "probable cause". That is terribly subjective.

Improper, i.e., subjective, education encourages tyranny by the few over the many. And I've yet to see, or hear, a political hack (candidate) for any office denounce the "system", which is not called for in the constitution. Anywhere.


----------



## danielpalos

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.
> 
> Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.


I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.


----------



## danielpalos

MadChemist said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.
> 
> Not even the brilliant Black Lives Matter revolutionaries are smart enough to call for a constitutional convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.
> 
> The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.
> 
> I personally value the concept of federalism and the 10th amendment.  I really would hate to see  that go away.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we could a better job today.


----------



## danielpalos

MadChemist said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend you be careful what you ask for.
> 
> The constitution could easily be rewritten to be more right or left wing.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it cannot. You do not understand the long drawn out process that a modern convention will incur. You obviously, have not reviewed any of the discussions that I have presented here at USMB; but that is par for the course for most people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point me in the direction of your discussions.
> 
> A link would be good.
> 
> But to my point......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbpp.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.  After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is how we got our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are "tiny tyrannies" it is because people have let evil men gain control.  That will happen regardless of whether the federal government is overarching or not.
> 
> 
> 
> no no the point is that state Constitutions provided for unlimited power of govt thus proving that Founders we ok with tyranny as long as it was their tyranny.
Click to expand...

States have the equivalent to our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  The People need to understand the language used to frame the concepts.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

danielpalos said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe we could a better job today.
Click to expand...

It appears that most people are just like you. Although, the evolution of technology has advanced horse drawn carriages to automobiles, dreams about flying through the air have been met and surpassed by rockets ships that landed men on the Moon. Sea going ships are now made of steel and launch and recover aircraft and fire cannon balls the size of powder kegs. Ice houses have been replaced with refrigeration machines, and simple to use ice cubes are readily available on demand. Food is readily available 24 hours a day. Pictures of people and things can be produced in an instant, and people can talk to and see other people around the world at any time they want. Buildings can be constructed thousands of feet high made of steel and glass, a hundred floors with elevators and running water and flushing toilets. Pen and paper, that the founders had to use to write the almighty United States Constitution has been replaced by computer aided word processing that can automatically correct spelling errors and rearrange articles and sections without having to rewrite the entire draft, but there is no way we can make government any more efficient and more responsive than what the brilliant racist slave-owners composed in 1787.


danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.


The Amendments prove you wrong. The founders would disagree with you on everything else. If they had the telephone, they would have made a network of the state legislatures for the senate, and a network of the municipal councils for the House - any fucking idiot should be able to see that.

Just can't be done, because . . . the erroneous three-part separation model keeps everyone's ideas about government organization and decision making in the proverbial box. 








						SLCS - US4CC
					

US4CC




					www.us4cc.info


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Englewood said:


> Our present Constitution was considered the result of the liberalism of The Age of Enlightenment. Some also realize that the Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor.  It is quite possible were we to write a new Constitution,it would more liberal thanthe present one.


Of course it would be more liberal Today half the country are Democrats which is short for socialist communist.


----------



## danielpalos

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem is that it is obvious that we do not agree as to what the terms of the Constitution define, and that means we need to have a modern constitutional convention to get it all straightened out; but nobody, except me is smart enough to figure that out and publish an actual reorganization plan.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe we could a better job today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that most people are just like you. Although, the evolution of technology has advanced horse drawn carriages to automobiles, dreams about flying through the air have been met and surpassed by rockets ships that landed men on the Moon. Sea going ships are now made of steel and launch and recover aircraft and fire cannon balls the size of powder kegs. Ice houses have been replaced with refrigeration machines, and simple to use ice cubes are readily available on demand. Food is readily available 24 hours a day. Pictures of people and things can be produced in an instant, and people can talk to and see other people around the world at any time they want. Buildings can be constructed thousands of feet high made of steel and glass, a hundred floors with elevators and running water and flushing toilets. Pen and paper, that the founders had to use to write the almighty United States Constitution has been replaced by computer aided word processing that can automatically correct spelling errors and rearrange articles and sections without having to rewrite the entire draft, but there is no way we can make government any more efficient and more responsive than what the brilliant racist slave-owners composed in 1787.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Amendments prove you wrong. The founders would disagree with you on everything else. If they had the telephone, they would have made a network of the state legislatures for the senate, and a network of the municipal councils for the House - any fucking idiot should be able to see that.
> 
> Just can't be done, because . . . the erroneous three-part separation model keeps everyone's ideas about government organization and decision making in the proverbial box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SLCS - US4CC
> 
> 
> US4CC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.us4cc.info
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term.  We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.

And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments.  The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term.  We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.


What concepts did they use that cannot be surpassed by the updated information about law and government that we have now that they did not have in 1800?
Three-part separation theory - you think that cannot be improperly deployed???

How about the department of justice - you don't think that can be separated from the presidency, because it is not needed to be??? 
United States Department of Justice - Wikipedia


danielpalos said:


> And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments.  The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.


Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.


----------



## Gdjjr

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.


As long as there is no punishment for malfeasance, no rule will work- people do have the power to change the elected, every election- but most are too busy to worry with the bullshit from the Districts of Criminals as long as they can pay their mortgage and car note- changing the constitution won't change that. Most of the noise around elections is from the media- people vote what they're familiar with, or against. Period.

One single object will merit the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining judges from usurping legislation- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston [1825]


----------



## danielpalos

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  Our Founding Fathers resorted to object orientation before the technology sector gave us the term.  We could not do a better job today because of the Concepts they use not the technology they had.
> 
> 
> 
> What concepts did they use that cannot be surpassed by the updated information about law and government that we have now that they did not have in 1800?
> Three-part separation theory - you think that cannot be improperly deployed???
> 
> How about the department of justice - you don't think that can be separated from the presidency, because it is not needed to be???
> United States Department of Justice - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, it a simple lack morals that necessitated any amendments.  The anti-federalists understood that better than the federalists, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is an excuse for not understanding that the checks and balances do not work.
Click to expand...

There are no better concepts to surpass.  This is what our federal Constitution is supposed to effectuate:
_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
It is a simple lack of morals not knowledge or technology.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

danielpalos said:


> _ insure domestic Tranquility_


And the incorrect organization of the government skews the approach to domestic tranquility.


----------



## danielpalos

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ insure domestic Tranquility_
> 
> 
> 
> And the incorrect organization of the government skews the approach to domestic tranquility.
Click to expand...

There is no incorrect organization of Government; it is simply a lack of faithful execution of our own laws. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Blacks were citizens after 1808.  Our Civil War should have never happened.


----------



## 2aguy

IM2 said:


> *Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress*
> 
> _*What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation*_
> 
> "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.
> 
> Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.
> 
> Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."
> 
> If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.
> 
> As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."
> 
> In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)
> 
> Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade  the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)
> 
> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "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."
> 
> Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic




Moron...that is why the seperated the powers of government between 3 distinct groups, why they put checks and balances into every aspect of the newly formed federal government and its relationship to the states...you don't know what you are talking about....you moron.....

The reason they specified so deeply about what congress could do was because they state in the 10th Amendment that any power not specifically given to the federal government belonged to the states and the people...you dumb ass....it limited the power of congress, you don't have any clue what you are talking about.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> One single object will merit the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining judges from usurping legislation- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston [1825]



Well who really cares where legislation comes from. We can have stupid liberal legislation from the Court or the Congress. Conservatives are losing the battle everywhere: media, schools, colleges, govt, entertainment, deep state, churches, corporations. Does it really matter from what gun or guns the fatal shot comes?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

2aguy said:


> As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so.


OMG!!!  Of course it says so but you have read it to know it. Do you know how to read at all?? Constitution strictly limits  govt to the "enumerated powers" and  further reinforces that principle with the Bill of Rights!! Do you know about the Bill of Rights?? Do you want to ask your Mom to confirm this and then get back to us?


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Well who really cares where legislation comes from.


Intellectuals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well who really cares where legislation comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectuals.
Click to expand...




Gdjjr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well who really cares where legislation comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectuals.
Click to expand...

what about intellectuals???  if they care we obviously want to know  why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.


----------



## Gdjjr

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.


You asked a question. I answered it.


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> if they care we obviously want to know why they care


I personally don't care why they care. 

Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Gdjjr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question. I answered it.
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they care we obviously want to know why they care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally don't care why they care.
> 
> Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
Click to expand...

Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped. 
Make sense?


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question. I answered it.
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they care we obviously want to know why they care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally don't care why they care.
> 
> Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
> Make sense?
Click to expand...

No.  This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question. I answered it.
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they care we obviously want to know why they care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally don't care why they care.
> 
> Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
> Make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:
> "secure the Blessings of Liberty"
Click to expand...

Yes they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty ie oppose monarchy and socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about intellectuals??? if they care we obviously want to know why they care from what gun the fatal shot comes and not why there are so many guns aimed at us.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question. I answered it.
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they care we obviously want to know why they care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally don't care why they care.
> 
> Intellectuals, by today's standards, impress me not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it’s not that important whether intellectuals impress you or not. The only thing that is important is that socialism be stopped.
> Make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish via the social Order of Government:
> "secure the Blessings of Liberty"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they wanted to secure the blessings of liberty ie oppose monarchy and socialism.
Click to expand...

Our form of Government is the social Order that is supposed to effectuate the goal.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Our form of Government is the social Order that is supposed to effectuate the goal.


You don't live in the U.S. then.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of Government is the social Order that is supposed to effectuate the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't live in the U.S. then.
Click to expand...

I must; I understand our Constitution better than all of the right wing.  Don't You live in the US?


----------

