# Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats



## Neotrotsky

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

    -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
    -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
    -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
    -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
    -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!


----------



## Avatar4321

It's a rule that should have always been in effect.

It also makes law suit challenges easier to define.


----------



## WillowTree

poor old bawney. looks sad so so so so sad.


----------



## WillowTree

The Republican house should throw a welcome back "weenie" roast donchyathink?


----------



## Baruch Menachem

there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.


Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.




Really, the US Constitution was meant to bite ALL politicians in the ass


----------



## Avatar4321

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



Well fine then. It's not about giving Republicans power. It's about keeping our Politicians honest.


----------



## rightwinger

It won't be hard to do

The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence





Then the Dems should stop whining about it


----------



## Revere

Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Revere said:


> Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.




or that you have to buy something


----------



## rightwinger

Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause

Won't be hard to justify


----------



## Revere

The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  Why have judges to interpret it?


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
> 
> Won't be hard to justify





Sure, with those why even have a Constitution


----------



## Neotrotsky

Revere said:


> The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
> 
> If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  Why have judges to interpret it?





It is the only hope the Left has.....


They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Supremacy clause only means that when there is a conflict, federal rules take precedence.  

The usual route is not General Welfare, ast that is pretty narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers.

The usual route is the commerce clause.    But that has been stretched way too far already


----------



## DiamondDave

rightwinger said:


> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence



No.. it is not very broad...

And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...



And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do


----------



## jillian

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



what a stupid rule.

it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.

and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'?? 

the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.

i'm pretty sure they didn't consider the issue of whether ledbetter's rights were violated by goodyear tires.

i like this from the article:



> Both parties are operating under the same set of rules. When Republicans lose, though, they call Democrats unpatriotic and unconstitutional. It&#8217;s like the Republicans think that the Constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, minorities and everything else that makes them uncomfortable,&#8221; the aide said.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/22/new-gop-constitution-rule-irks-house-democrats/#ixzz18y3wmFLL

like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards.


----------



## loosecannon

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional. 

What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)

It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.


----------



## loosecannon

Neotrotsky said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
> 
> If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  Why have judges to interpret it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only hope the Left has.....
> 
> 
> They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People
Click to expand...


obviously you meant to say "the right".


----------



## kiwiman127

Oh good, there won't be any more Terri Schiavo type of intrusion of States Rights!


----------



## loosecannon

"like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards."

The teatards will believe it every time something that transparent is used to support unconstitutional GOP legislation.


----------



## Neotrotsky

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually, it is their job....

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws) 

The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional. 

Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?


----------



## jillian

Neotrotsky said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.

or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?


----------



## loosecannon

Neotrotsky said:


> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?



Only the courts can issue authoritative declarations about what is or isn't unconstitutional.

If Congress or the president assert that a new law is or isn't constitutional their opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as the opinion of Bart Simpson.


----------



## Neotrotsky

loosecannon said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the courts can issue authoritative declarations about what is or isn't unconstitutional. Since they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, it would be in direct violation of their duties.
> 
> If Congress or the president assert that a new law is or isn't constitutional their opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as the opinion of Bart Simpson.
Click to expand...



Agree that the courts make the final decision.

But Congress or the President can't knowingly attempt or pass something they know to be unconstitutional.

Any law that comes of Congress is by default constitutional; it is the law of the land, unless or until a challenge is taken to court.


----------



## Neotrotsky

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
Click to expand...


Not at all! But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.

Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional? 

Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it

Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with.....


----------



## Agit8r

That's cool.  As long as they are willing to do the same when a Pinochetist is in the White House


----------



## Avatar4321

Revere said:


> Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.



Im sure the Interstate Commerce Clause implies that somehow. Im not sure how yet. But why wouldnt it?


----------



## Avatar4321

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> i'm pretty sure they didn't consider the issue of whether ledbetter's rights were violated by goodyear tires.
> 
> i like this from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are operating under the same set of rules. When Republicans lose, though, they call Democrats unpatriotic and unconstitutional. Its like the Republicans think that the Constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, minorities and everything else that makes them uncomfortable, the aide said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more: New GOP Constitution rule irks House Democrats | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> 
> like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards.
Click to expand...


No branch of the Federal Government determines what's Constitutional. The Constitution is the standard to determine the Constitutionality of an issue.

And all three branches are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. So it's the Responsibility of each branch to ensure that the Federal Government doesn't over step it's bounds.

Congress is finally taking some positive action to do this. It's nice for a change.


----------



## Agit8r

I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote


----------



## Avatar4321

kiwiman127 said:


> Oh good, there won't be any more Terri Schiavo type of intrusion of States Rights!



Read the 14th amendment sometimes. The Federal Government has the obligation to protect citizens rights to life against termination without due process.


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote



The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.

It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.


----------



## Agit8r

Avatar4321 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.
> 
> It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.
Click to expand...


it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes? 

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn



The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.

However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.

I doubt the issue is going to come up.


----------



## Agit8r

Avatar4321 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.
> 
> However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.
> 
> I doubt the issue is going to come up.
Click to expand...


It should come up. There isn't a specifically enumerated power to operate an Air Force.

There is also no specific enumeration of power to operate ATF, FBI, NSA, DEA, CIA, NASA, Secret Service, FEMA, TSA, Dept of Agriculture... the list goes on and on...


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
Click to expand...


The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Agit8r said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.
> 
> It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn
Click to expand...



Just a FYI

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps probably to be more "pure" in allegiance to the Constitution (1926-1947) 

What we know as the "Air Force" today was formed in 1947. Of course, coming off the era of FDR, the era of the  "constitution did not mean that much" or the "flexible constitution"  was started, this should be no surprise.


----------



## Sallow

Agit8r said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.
> 
> It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn
Click to expand...


Constitutionally..the "ARMY" is not permanent. The navy is..


----------



## jillian

Sallow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
Click to expand...


civics should be taught in school. or you can always get a poli sci degree which gives you absolutely no job skills unless you go on to law school. lol..


----------



## Neotrotsky

Sallow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
Click to expand...



Yes, they would have helped you a lot


But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.

Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional? 

Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it

Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm seriously going to be ready with the popcorn to watch C-Span the next time a military appropriation bill comes up for vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.
> 
> It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> civics should be taught in school. or you can always get a poli sci degree which gives you absolutely no job skills unless you go on to law school. lol..
Click to expand...


I'd disagree. Politics is pretty important in most office environments.


----------



## 007

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!


They should make that retroactive.


----------



## Agit8r

I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power



They shouldnt be in the first place.


----------



## Sallow

Neotrotsky said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they would have helped you a lot
> 
> 
> But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
> 
> Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional?
> 
> Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
> 
> Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...
Click to expand...


There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.


----------



## Agit8r

We won't be having to pay for Secret Service protection for these people anymore






Because it is not a specifically enumerated power


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.



Since when is Congress exempt from their oath of office?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Sallow said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they would have helped you a lot
> 
> 
> But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
> 
> Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional?
> 
> Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
> 
> Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.
Click to expand...



Agree, but where they passed in good faith or not

Do you believe that a Congressman can say in the House that he wants to introduce a bill that is unconstitutional and get it voted on?


It is the law; they just don't have the final say if it is challenged 

Or does their oath mean nothing?


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> We won't be having to pay for Secret Service protection for these people anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not a specifically enumerated power



Fine. they can afford their own guards.


----------



## Agit8r

Security for supreme court justices?

NOPE!


----------



## Revere

Sallow said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they would have helped you a lot
> 
> 
> But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
> 
> Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional?
> 
> Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
> 
> Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.
Click to expand...


It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.


----------



## Agit8r

Deporting illegal immigrants?

NOPE!


----------



## Agit8r

Wiretapping?

NOPE!


----------



## jillian

Revere said:


> It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.



and as soon as you have the ability to know what is and isn't constitutional, i'm sure your trolling will mean something.

until then, let the grown ups speak.


----------



## Agit8r

War on Drugs?

NOPE!


----------



## Agit8r

War on Terror?

NOPE!


----------



## Revere

The less Congress does, the better.


----------



## Agit8r

Faith based initiatives?

NOPE!


----------



## Revere

Agit8r said:


> War on Drugs?
> 
> NOPE!



You statists always head for the libertarian tall grass...until your government teat is cut off.


----------



## jillian

Revere said:


> The less Congress does, the better.



and the less you post the better, trollboy, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.


----------



## Agit8r

Air conditioning for B2 bomber hangers?

NOPE!


----------



## Agit8r

Nukes?

NOPE!


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> The less Congress does, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the less you post the better, trollboy, the better, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.
Click to expand...


----------



## Neotrotsky

Agit8r said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.
> 
> However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.
> 
> I doubt the issue is going to come up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should come up. There isn't a specifically enumerated power to operate an Air Force.
> 
> There is also no specific enumeration of power to operate ATF, FBI, NSA, DEA, CIA, NASA, Secret Service, FEMA, TSA, Dept of Agriculture... the list goes on and on...
Click to expand...



specifically no, but when it comes to enumerated powers it was decided long ago

_McCulloch v. Maryland_  (1819)- Justice Marshall:"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are  limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the  sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national  legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the  powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable  that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most  beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within  the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,  which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but  consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are  constitutional," 

The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the  Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer to the only way of doing  something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all  constitutionally established powers. "Let the end be legitimate, let it  be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are  appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not  prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution,  are constitutional."​So we have a loose interpretation that allows many means to carry out their duties. But they still have to be within the scope of the Constitution.
It does not mean Congress can do anything it wants. 

For example,

_United States v. Lopez_ (1995)

held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states." 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government  of enumerated powers." For the first time in sixty years the Court  found that in creating a federal statute, Congress had exceeded the  power granted to it by the Commerce Clause.


So your point about DEA, security etc not being allowed is really not true nor does it support the idea that a our gov't can do anything it wants.
Granted, some things you have mentioned ( I have not looked at all of them) could be not "constitutional" , but to this day no one has bothered to take them to court or make it big enough of an issue.

Needless to say, I hope, neither should popularity of something dictate constitutionality of it. I suppose if Congress passed a law that said you could have sex with your next door neighbors wife, some would like that law. (I have seem my neighbor's wife that would not be a good law)


----------



## Agit8r

lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Agit8r said:


> lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?




Not at all, who said that?

But there is big political difference between building the White House for the President that has a shower (which was never specifically enumerated)
and trying to claim that gov't can do anything it wants because of a loose interpretation of the enumeration clause allowed for by the US Supreme Court


----------



## Sallow

Agit8r said:


> lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?



Absolutely.


----------



## Avatar4321

jillian said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and as soon as you have the ability to know what is and isn't constitutional, i'm sure your trolling will mean something.
> 
> until then, let the grown ups speak.
Click to expand...


Its really not that difficult to read the Constitution. I dont know why you think your some authority. especially when you are wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> Security for supreme court justices?
> 
> NOPE!



You're not familiar with the necessary and proper clause are you?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Agit8r said:


> I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power




This picture is better


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> Deporting illegal immigrants?
> 
> NOPE!



Article 1 Section 8.

Do you have any idea what the Constitution actually says?


----------



## Avatar4321

Agit8r said:


> lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?



Hardly. 

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
Click to expand...


Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

Have you read the Constitution?


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> 
> And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.
> 
> Have you read the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Have you?


----------



## Intense

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



I love the idea.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> 
> And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.
> 
> Have you read the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you?
Click to expand...


That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.

Which they do BTW


----------



## liebuster

Its a sad country we live in when politicians that swear to uphold the constitution are pissed because they are simply required to cite the constitutionality of a bill.


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> I love the idea.



Anyone who believes in the Constitution and is against corruption does.


----------



## rightwinger

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. it is not very broad...
> 
> And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...
> 
> 
> 
> And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do
Click to expand...


So it seems you have a problem already

You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> 
> And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.
> 
> Have you read the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.
> 
> Which they do BTW
Click to expand...


Actually..no.

Lets look at the powers.



> _To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;_
> 
> *To provide and maintain a Navy;*
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.

There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. it is not very broad...
> 
> And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...
> 
> 
> 
> And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it seems you have a problem already
> 
> You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?
Click to expand...


Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.
> 
> Which they do BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually..no.
> 
> Lets look at the powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;_
> 
> *To provide and maintain a Navy;*
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.
> 
> There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.
Click to expand...


Are you honestly telling me you don't understand the difference between conditions of appropriations and existence of the army in and of itself.

The Constitution limits the appropriations for the Army. Which is why we generally have an appropriations bill every year or so.

It doesn't limit the term of Army service.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this when it's written so clearly.


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.
> 
> Which they do BTW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..no.
> 
> Lets look at the powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;_
> 
> *To provide and maintain a Navy;*
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "army" must be "raised and supported" but for no longer then two years. And that army is meant to be drawn from a militia. Men in the 1700 were required by law to purchase their own arms and be ready to be called into the army. That's after the Continetal Army was disbanded. The founders were looking for the "citizen soldiers" not a class of professional warriors. The Second Amendment replaced the law to carry arms by making it a right.
> 
> There are no such stipulations with the navy. That's permanent. It doesn't need to be raised. Money doesn't need to be voted on every 2 years. And that's mainly because the idea was to defend from invasion..not invade. And to protect routes of commerce. The founders were not interested in Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you honestly telling me you don't understand the difference between conditions of appropriations and existence of the army in and of itself.
> 
> The Constitution limits the appropriations for the Army. Which is why we generally have an appropriations bill every year or so.
> 
> It doesn't limit the term of Army service.
> 
> I can't believe I actually have to explain this when it's written so clearly.
Click to expand...


There isn't a "limit" because no one knew how long a raised army would have to be put into place to repel an invasion or squash an insurrection. But the army was meant to be "as needed" not permanent.

And when discussing the "perversion" of the Constitution one need look no further then our current military industrial complex.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> There isn't a "limit" because no one knew how long a raised army would have to be put into place to repel an invasion or squash an insurrection. But the army was meant to be "as needed" not permanent.
> 
> And when discussing the "perversion" of the Constitution one need look no further then our current military industrial complex.



It certainly needs some looking at.

We need some radical changes to our attitudes and the policies we support.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.. it is not very broad...
> 
> And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...
> 
> 
> 
> And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems you have a problem already
> 
> You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.
Click to expand...


The will of the people is not always what our Constitution requires. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the minority against the will of the majority.  That is why we have courts


----------



## Revere

Then amend the Constitution.  That's provided for.


----------



## shintao

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



Good idea, Dems can attach riders to current passed Retard laws, and then say there is no constitutionality for the law. Nice way to end the ME war, and bring all of our troops home from abroad.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.. it is not very broad...
> 
> And while there is legal precedence, a lot of it is directly against the intent and wording of the constitution.. it just so happens that the power hungry government has been happy to go along with it...
> 
> 
> 
> And there is indeed a way built in to change or add to the constitution... it's called the amendment process.. and for things that are 'wanted' that are outside the scope of the constitution as specifically written, the process should be used... and if the amendment cannot be done, the change does not come about and the government does not get to do the extras it seeks to do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems you have a problem already
> 
> You are asking Congress to define the scope of the Constitution and all the findings over the last 200 years........isn't that what courts are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that why we are in the mess we are in??? If the Court is so Noble and above it all, RW, why are so many of the decisions split all the time??? One would expect pretty universal agreement in key rulings, no? What is paramount RW? It used to be the will of the People.
Click to expand...


the decisions are split because great minds disagree.... which is why it's such a joke when people come on here and start saying they *know* what the constitution says.

and no... that isn't why we're in the mess we're in.


----------



## westwall

Neotrotsky said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution full supports building and maintaining the military.
> 
> It's all the pork everyone puts in with it that's questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE.  Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?
> 
> I may have to go all out and get kettle corn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just a FYI
> 
> The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps probably to be more "pure" in allegiance to the Constitution (1926-1947)
> 
> What we know as the "Air Force" today was formed in 1947. Of course, coming off the era of FDR, the era of the  "constitution did not mean that much" or the "flexible constitution"  was started, this should be no surprise.
Click to expand...





Actually the Air Force began as a branch of the Army Signal Corps (called naturally enough the Aviation Section) in 1914 and their first operation was the punative operation against Pancho Villa in 1916 and by that time the unit was called the First Aero Squadron.
May 24 1918 saw the creation of the U.S. Army Air Service by President Wilson and placed under the direct control of the War Department.


----------



## Agit8r

It seems odd that soldiers enlist for longer than 2 years, as if this does not bind the congress to fund their enlisted term


----------



## Agit8r

Fusion Centers?  NOPE!

"Congress have power to suppress insurrection, yet it would nor be allowed to follow, that they might employ all the means tending to prevent them; of which a system of moral instruction for the ignorant, and of provident support for the poor, might be regarded as among the most efficacious."

--James Madison; Report on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1899)


----------



## Contumacious

Neotrotsky said:


> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority,!



*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc"]Are you serious?[/ame]*

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
> 
> Won't be hard to justify



Go ahead cite for us a SINGLE instance of ANYONE or any CONGRESS ever claiming the supposed General Welfare "clause" applied? I won't wait.

As for Supremacy Clause, that does not grant any power to CREATE new laws, it simply says that any LEGALLY Constitutional law passed by the US Congress and approved by the President supersedes State law. The specific law STILL has to be Constitutional.


----------



## code1211

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.




If so, that's an ass needs biting.


----------



## code1211

rightwinger said:


> Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
> 
> Won't be hard to justify




You either have never read or just cannot understand those clauses.


----------



## code1211

Baruch Menachem said:


> Supremacy clause only means that when there is a conflict, federal rules take precedence.
> 
> The usual route is not General Welfare, ast that is pretty narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers.
> 
> The usual route is the commerce clause.    But that has been stretched way too far already




I hope the Commerce Clause is about to have a more narrow definition applied than has been used in the past.


----------



## code1211

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
Click to expand...




Not being a lawyer lends much confusion to my understanding of legal decisions.  However, it seems that when a suit is brought, a particular point of law is cited as the reason for the complaint.  

Decisions on the other hand can often stray from that particular point.

All of that said, if the part of the Constitution cited to jusify a particular law is included in the law, that would serve to both predict the Constitutionality of the law and direct the suit to be brought in the future.

I think, given the implementation of this rule, we probably could have avoided both Viet Nam and Iraq.  The Congress is not, I don't think, alowed the option to abdicate its responsiblity to declare war, is it?

Both of these are are examples of the cowardice and the limp wristed "nuanced response" favored by our Legislators today.  They willingly force their responsibilities on the President than complain loud and long that he exercises them.


----------



## Cuyo

Avatar4321 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article 1 Section 8:* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> *There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> Have you read the Constitution?*
Click to expand...




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence *and general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?


----------



## Intense

Cuyo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1 Section 8:* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> *There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> Have you read the Constitution?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence *and general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?
Click to expand...


How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.



Merry Christmas to you and yours, Intense. But once again, there IS no 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE" as regards constitutionality. That i the point. And I don't understand why you keep saying that over and over. It simply doesn't exist. There is no super-majority. There is no CHOICE when it comes to people having their rights.

The POINT of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority... no matter how small that minority. 

I know you're smarter than that... yet you keep saying it over and over. No matter how much you want it, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Agit8r

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas to you and yours, Intense. But once again, there IS no 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE" as regards constitutionality. That i the point. And I don't understand why you keep saying that over and over. It simply doesn't exist. There is no super-majority. There is no CHOICE when it comes to people having their rights.
> 
> The POINT of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority... no matter how small that minority.
> 
> I know you're smarter than that... yet you keep saying it over and over. No matter how much you want it, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


My guess is that Intense is referring to the 10th Amendment (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*).  Though I've never understood that to refer to any collective will, but merely leaving those things which are enumerated to neither state nor federal constitutions, to the self governance of the individual...


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence


Oh boy!  Multiple citations of the Good and Plenty clause!



Remind me again why we rebelled against a totalitarian central government?


----------



## cutter

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



If following the Constitution will bite you in the ass then chew away. It's the way it ALWAYS should have been. Learn to follow the Constitution and you won't get bit.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.


We the people' to open next Congress
House to read Constitution

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

*The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*

The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.

&#39;We the people&#39; to open next Congress - Washington Times


----------



## California Girl

Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

NYcarbineer said:


> Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.



There was also never really a movement like the TEA Party who ACTUALLY believes in the Constitution STILL, and are very likely to follow it as they were elected on that platform, and their political lives will depend on it.

So let's chill with the BS predictions shall we?  You're also one to talk bout grandstanding.


----------



## jillian

there is no 'tea party'. there is only the same rightwingnuts who have always been the rabid rightwing of the 'base'. they just found a name for themselves.


----------



## jillian

California Girl said:


> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.



not you, too. i expect better from you.

there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.

the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.


----------



## rightwinger

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> We the people' to open next Congress
> House to read Constitution
> 
> By Stephen Dinan
> 
> The Washington Times
> 
> *The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*
> 
> The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
> 
> 'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times



I am impressed!

I never knew the Conservatives to read anything past the second ammendment


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.



then why should you care? you can paint them red after they blow it, right?


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?

hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

jillian said:


> there is no 'tea party'. there is only the same rightwingnuts who have always been the rabid rightwing of the 'base'. they just found a name for themselves.



^^New stupidest post of the day^^

Don't you ever get enough of looking ridiculous?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?
> 
> hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.
Click to expand...


Don't try common sense with her.  In her fantasy world ANYONE who still believes in the Constitution is a "wingnut"


----------



## jillian

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?
> 
> hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.
Click to expand...


it is not the role of the congress to decide what is constitutional or not. that is the role of the court. i went to law school because i loved studying court cases and the constitution does actually have meaning to me. but not this perverted version of what the constitution is that the pretend constitutionalists would turn it into. there have been more than 200 years of scholars debating, discussing, analyzing what the meaning and application of the constitution requires. the pretend constitutionalists make a mockery of it.  i don't count myself among the scholars and experts even though i've practiced law since i was 23. but i know for sure that the pretend constitutionalists haven't a clue. 

and the pomp and circumstance of 'reading the constitution' to appease the pretend constitutionalists is a lot of pointless noise and purely for show.

it turns my stomach, actually.

/rant over. (but you asked).


----------



## rightwinger

If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...


Why do they want to modify so much of it?


----------



## jillian

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?
> 
> hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try common sense with her.  In her fantasy world ANYONE who still believes in the Constitution is a "wingnut"
Click to expand...


you haven't a clue what the constitution is, wingnut. 

so quiet.


----------



## rdean

New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution

Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?
> 
> hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is not the role of the congress to decide what is constitutional or not. that is the role of the court. i went to law school because i loved studying court cases and the constitution does actually have meaning to me. but not this perverted version of what the constitution is that the pretend constitutionalists would turn it into. there have been more than 200 years of scholars debating, discussing, analyzing what the meaning and application of the constitution requires. the pretend constitutionalists make a mockery of it.  i don't count myself among the scholars and experts even though i've practiced law since i was 23. but i know for sure that the pretend constitutionalists haven't a clue.
> 
> and the pomp and circumstance of 'reading the constitution' to appease the pretend constitutionalists is a lot of pointless noise and purely for show.
> 
> it turns my stomach, actually.
> 
> /rant over. (but you asked).
Click to expand...


I understand your points, however could you imagine if say the SC started their session with a reading of the Const. ? 

 I don't think there would be enough ink to print the outrage and it would cause considerable angst between those that view the document differently.

In the end congresscritters as does the pres. take an oath upon election or reelection to support and defend the Constitution, bear true faith yada yada...I just dont see any harm here.


----------



## Trajan

rdean said:


> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.



maybe reading it would help eh?.....


----------



## rightwinger

rdean said:


> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.



The Constitution is a boring read...

Most will doze through it


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why should you care? you can paint them red after they blow it, right?
Click to expand...


They already blew it, on earmarks, and on supporting the budget busting tax bill.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...
> 
> 
> Why do they want to modify so much of it?



uhm what????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good plan. The more grandstanding they do, the more ridiculous they'll look every time they backslide into business-as-usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why should you care? you can paint them red after they blow it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already blew it, on earmarks, and on supporting the budget busting tax bill.
Click to expand...


yes we know, you have told us, this will just add grist to your mill then. enjoy.


----------



## Mad Scientist

rdean said:


> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.


Maybe it would help Democrats/Communists and Socialists to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.

I'll bet this will be the first time *many* of our elected leaders (on both sides) have ever heard the Constitution read in it's entirety.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...
> 
> 
> Why do they want to modify so much of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm what????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...


5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change | TPMDC

1st Amendment
- Ban Flag Burning
- Restrictions on mosques

14th Amendment
-Revoke Birthright Citizenship

16th Amendment
- Restrict how Government can collect taxes

17th Amendment
- Revoke direct election of Senators


----------



## jillian

rightwinger said:


> If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...
> 
> 
> Why do they want to modify so much of it?



because they don't love it. they hate the federal government.

i think you'll find behind all the pretend constitutionalists protestations is ultimately the desire to destroy the central government.


----------



## xotoxi

People in Congress should be forced to wear a uniform.

This is the shirt:


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...
> 
> 
> Why do they want to modify so much of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm what????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change | TPMDC
> 
> 1st Amendment
> - Ban Flag Burning
> - Restrictions on mosques
> 
> 14th Amendment
> -Revoke Birthright Citizenship
> 
> 16th Amendment
> - Restrict how Government can collect taxes
> 
> 17th Amendment
> - Revoke direct election of Senators
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

Mad Scientist said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it would help Democrats/Communists and Socialists to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.
> 
> I'll bet this will be the first time *many* of our elected leaders (on both sides) have ever heard the Constitution read in it's entirety.
Click to expand...


first of all, its really really important to know what words mean when you use them. democrat is not interchangeable with socialist or communist... nor are socialist and communist interchangeable with each other.

repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. it just makes the people saying it sound silly... 

no matter what the rightwingnut rush limbaugh and glen beck tell you.

second you want to compare your knowledge of 'the constitution' with real constitutionalists?

i don't think you'd come out very well in the comparison.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

rdean said:


> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.



Maybe it would help you to stop subscribing to a grossly un/anti-American, lefty excuse for a political ideology that has been the most hostile thing to our Constitution EVER, giving you NO credibility to criticize them bout knowing it.


----------



## jillian

Trajan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe reading it would help eh?.....
Click to expand...


no it wouldn't. absent the body of caselaw decided over the past 200 years, there is no meaning to it. we are a common law system... not a 'code' system like france.

"due process" has a dictionary meaning. what "due process" requires under the constitution is what the caselaw tells you and what scholars argue about... 

and is something the pretend constitutionalists have no clue about.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> uhm what????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change | TPMDC
> 
> 1st Amendment
> - Ban Flag Burning
> - Restrictions on mosques
> 
> 14th Amendment
> -Revoke Birthright Citizenship
> 
> 16th Amendment
> - Restrict how Government can collect taxes
> 
> 17th Amendment
> - Revoke direct election of Senators
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm with you on this one..

I think the Conservative position on our Constitution is laughable. You don't see liberals whining about why the Constitution needs to be changed


----------



## WillowTree

Sore fucking losers. DemonRats. Last year they denied there was a TEA Party. Tea Party kicked some ass in both parties. Jillian only likes the constitution when the DemonRats are in power. She's like obie wan, anyone who isn't a demonRats is a fake constitutionalist or a fake patriot. Yeah Yeah Yeah.


----------



## The T

It's a nice reminder to those that are there for power interests just where the POWER lies...and it isn't with the members...

NICE idea. I think it should become a _TRADITION by RULE._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Considering the majority in both parties have no idea what the constitution is about, I am glad the House is doing this.


----------



## rdean

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republicans love the Constitution so much...
> 
> 
> Why do they want to modify so much of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm what????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change | TPMDC
> 
> 1st Amendment
> - Ban Flag Burning
> - Restrictions on mosques
> 
> 14th Amendment
> -Revoke Birthright Citizenship
> 
> 16th Amendment
> - Restrict how Government can collect taxes
> 
> 17th Amendment
> - Revoke direct election of Senators
Click to expand...


Constitution-Loving Republicans Have Proposed 42 Amendments To Their Beloved Document

&#8220;Constitution-Loving&#8221; Republicans Have Proposed 42 Amendments To Their Beloved Document  Alan Colmes&#039; Liberaland

Not 5, but 42.


----------



## rdean

WillowTree said:


> Sore fucking losers. DemonRats. Last year they denied there was a TEA Party. Tea Party kicked some ass in both parties. Jillian only likes the constitution when the DemonRats are in power. She's like obie wan, anyone who isn't a demonRats is a fake constitutionalist or a fake patriot. Yeah Yeah Yeah.



Tea Baggers are the intellectual base of the Republican Party.  Everyone knows that.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

rdean said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sore fucking losers. DemonRats. Last year they denied there was a TEA Party. Tea Party kicked some ass in both parties. Jillian only likes the constitution when the DemonRats are in power. She's like obie wan, anyone who isn't a demonRats is a fake constitutionalist or a fake patriot. Yeah Yeah Yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Baggers are the intellectual base of the Republican Party.  Everyone knows that.
Click to expand...


Everyone as wacko far left as YOU.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> Sore fucking losers. DemonRats. Last year they denied there was a TEA Party. Tea Party kicked some ass in both parties. Jillian only likes the constitution when the DemonRats are in power. She's like obie wan, anyone who isn't a demonRats is a fake constitutionalist or a fake patriot. Yeah Yeah Yeah.



loon... 

i like when people who know what the hell the constitution is talk about it.  did you ever hear me say alito shouldn't be allowed to talk about the constitution? roberts? i disagree with them, too.

but imbeciles like who who pretend you *know* what it says deserve to be made fun of... 



go have another drink, willow... i think you're not drooling enough yet.


----------



## uscitizen

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> We the people' to open next Congress
> House to read Constitution
> 
> By Stephen Dinan
> 
> The Washington Times
> 
> *The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*
> 
> The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
> 
> 'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times



the right wing always puts on a good talk but seem to most always suck on the walking of their talk.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

uscitizen said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> We the people' to open next Congress
> House to read Constitution
> 
> By Stephen Dinan
> 
> The Washington Times
> 
> *The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*
> 
> The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
> 
> 'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing always puts on a good talk but seem to most always suck on the walking of their talk.
Click to expand...


LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.

I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....


----------



## goldcatt

I don't see the harm in it. If it wasn't reading the constitution into the record it would be another dog and pony show. 

I don't see the point in it either. If any congressperson hasn't already read it, pretending to pay attention to what's being piped into their offices isn't going to make a difference.

And of course, absent any context or actual study it's not exactly something you can understand anything about by listening to somebody read it aloud, once.

Big "whatever" if you ask me. But knock your socks off!


----------



## uscitizen

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> We the people' to open next Congress
> House to read Constitution
> 
> By Stephen Dinan
> 
> The Washington Times
> 
> *The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*
> 
> The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
> 
> 'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing always puts on a good talk but seem to most always suck on the walking of their talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
Click to expand...


Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.


----------



## The T

uscitizen said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing always puts on a good talk but seem to most always suck on the walking of their talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.
Click to expand...

 
And that justifies _FOR YOU_ the unwanten Spending of this Congress...Or _any other_ for that matter?

Is it an excuse for you? Just because you put the word _REPUBLICAN_ in front of it?

Sorry. The _republicans garnered the HOUSE _on a DEAl with the people...because the petulant children that reside in the Statist Commucrat Party want to take away Liberty as led by OBAMA...

So here's how it's laid down...

The Republicans are on _Double Secret Probation_...and if they fail the people THEY will be fired as were the Statists...

Hopefully they got the mesaage, and will whittle down or begin the process of putting the Government BACK to it's intended precept...

It will take DECADES. Only the patient understand the process of what got us here and understand what it will take, and how long it will take...to get us back to the _Constitution._


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Constitutional Amendments That Constitution-Loving Tea Partiers Would Change | TPMDC
> 
> 1st Amendment
> - Ban Flag Burning
> - Restrictions on mosques
> 
> 14th Amendment
> -Revoke Birthright Citizenship
> 
> 16th Amendment
> - Restrict how Government can collect taxes
> 
> 17th Amendment
> - Revoke direct election of Senators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on this one..
> 
> I think the Conservative position on our Constitution is laughable. You don't see liberals whining about why the Constitution needs to be changed
Click to expand...



you still aint there yet.


----------



## uscitizen

The T said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that justifies _FOR YOU_ the unwanten Spending of this Congress...Or _any other_ for that matter?
> 
> Is it an excuse for you? Just because you put the word _REPUBLICAN_ in front of it?
> 
> Sorry. The _republicans garnered the HOUSE _on a DEAl with the people...because the petulant children that reside in the Statist Commucrat Party want to take away Liberty as led by OBAMA...
> 
> So here's how it's laid down...
> 
> The Republicans are on _Double Secret Probation_...and if they fail the people THEY will be fired as were the Statists...
> 
> Hopefully they got the mesaage, and will whittle down or begin the process of putting the Government BACK to it's intended precept...
> 
> It will take DECADES. Only the patient understand the process of what got us here and understand what it will take, and how long it will take...to get us back to the _Constitution._
Click to expand...


On double secret probation for haow many times?
How many that engaged in the spending were re-elected in November?

Just partisan hogwash, you will keep pulling the republican lever.
And keep blaming the other guys for your own failings, just as the partisan other guys do.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

The T said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that justifies _FOR YOU_ the unwanten Spending of this Congress...Or _any other_ for that matter?
> 
> Is it an excuse for you? Just because you put the word _REPUBLICAN_ in front of it?
> 
> Sorry. The _republicans garnered the HOUSE _on a DEAl with the people...because the petulant children that reside in the Statist Commucrat Party want to take away Liberty as led by OBAMA...
> 
> So here's how it's laid down...
> 
> The Republicans are on _Double Secret Probation_...and if they fail the people THEY will be fired as were the Statists...
> 
> Hopefully they got the mesaage, and will whittle down or begin the process of putting the Government BACK to it's intended precept...
> 
> It will take DECADES. Only the patient understand the process of what got us here and understand what it will take, and how long it will take...to get us back to the _Constitution._
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???


----------



## goldcatt

The T said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that justifies _FOR YOU_ the unwanten Spending of this Congress...Or _any other_ for that matter?
> 
> Is it an excuse for you? Just because you put the word _REPUBLICAN_ in front of it?
> 
> Sorry. The _republicans garnered the HOUSE _on a DEAl with the people...because the petulant children that reside in the Statist Commucrat Party want to take away Liberty as led by OBAMA...
> 
> So here's how it's laid down...
> 
> *The Republicans are on Double Secret Probation...and if they fail the people THEY will be fired *as were the Statists...
> 
> Hopefully they got the mesaage, and will whittle down or begin the process of putting the Government BACK to it's intended precept...
> 
> It will take DECADES. Only the patient understand the process of what got us here and understand what it will take, and how long it will take...to get us back to the _Constitution._
Click to expand...


I agree with the bolded in principle, although not quite so vehemently. 

The problem is twofold. First, the GOP by and large seems to think they've won a mandate. They don't seem to understand they won because people are fed up in general and want to try something if not new, then at least different. Second, if the GOP screws up (and I'm willing to bet they will, it's the nature of the beast in both parties for the last 30 years), who are you going to replace them with? Dems? They've got you, or most people who feel like you anyway and aren't willing to vote third party, and they know it. Just like the Dems take their base for granted. 

Good luck with all that, but remember meet the new boss same as the old boss.


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???


The Supreme Court.  You DID take government in the 9th Grade, didn't you?


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.  You DID take government in the 9th Grade, didn't you?
Click to expand...


Oh...I get it now

The Courts get to decide on Constitutionality....not the Congress


Learn something new every day


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> New GOP House to open with reading of Constitution
> 
> Maybe it would help Republicans and Tea Baggers to understand what it really means and not what they "imagine" it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe reading it would help eh?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wouldn't. absent the body of caselaw decided over the past 200 years, there is no meaning to it. we are a common law system... not a 'code' system like france.
> 
> "due process" has a dictionary meaning. what "due process" requires under the constitution is what the caselaw tells you and what scholars argue about...
> 
> and is something the pretend constitutionalists have no clue about.
Click to expand...




Yes,  I agree with that I understand your point.

 I however think that 90% of them have not the faintest idea  of what it actually holds, even as a blueprint, yes we have the fed court system and the sc to make determinations  on specifics if necessary.  


Perhaps, if they understood  some framework and principles conceptually and how they the Founders saw  them and put them in onto paper,  most especially article 1 sect 8. which speaks to enumerated powers and the 10th amendment as it applies to the investiture or not of powers between the states and the federal gov.?

I remember a question asked of our speaker ala where in the const. does she find the power to enact a mandate where in you are forcing someone to engage in commerce? Her response? &#8220;are you kidding?&#8221;

Maybe if she has a foundation of the basics at least she could have said _something_? Because that&#8217;s not what the commerce clause says not will they find succor in the Necessary and Proper Clause either, is this a stretch for at least the speaker of the house?. If our leadership had at least a basic grounding I think we would avoid a great deal of damage  to the body politick and the country, we would for instance I think come out with a plan  that had bi-partisan sppt.  and an even chance of success. 

And please don&#8217;t take this as political shot at anyone,  it&#8217;s the most recent egregious example I could think of, further I seriously doubt Boehner or McConnell could do any better and thats a problem. 

Maybe they should give them all a test before they get seated, how about an open book round table on McCulloch v. Maryland at the very least.

 I just don't see the harm here.


----------



## Trajan

uscitizen said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing always puts on a good talk but seem to most always suck on the walking of their talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you never really make much sense huh, and could use some English/grammar classes.
> 
> I already addressed how *what you tried to say is BS*, so yea.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at spending during the last 3 republican presidents and one of them had control of both houses for 6 years.
Click to expand...


so the _presidents_ spent the money? you missing anyone there?


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> there is no 'tea party'. there is only the same rightwingnuts who have always been the rabid rightwing of the 'base'. they just found a name for themselves.



You may prefer to believe that, but it is not actually true. My parents have been members of the TEA Party movement since before Obama became POTUS. An inconvenient truth, I believe is the term du jour.


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not you, too. i expect better from you.
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
Click to expand...


Try not to talk down to people just because you don't agree with them, mo chara. I've maintained the same stance since I arrived on the board. It ain't news. 

We ain't pretend constitutionalists. We are Constitutionalists. And... we ain't going anywhere. Get used to it.


----------



## zzzz

Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition? 

Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

zzzz said:


> Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition?
> 
> Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.



Understandable sentiment, but not this time....I really believe our new TEA Party class WILL be different......


----------



## rightwinger

Since so many Republican Congressmen confuse the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution......It might be a good idea

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/john_boehner_reads_the_constit.html

when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it.

Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence.

An excuse can be made that what Boehner actually waved is a booklet given to all Congress members, and it includes both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Problem, is, Boehner said, "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our founding fathers, who wrote in the preamble, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' "


----------



## shintao

rightwinger said:


> Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???



Oh, heavens no! Every bill judged unconstitutional, will be sent to the Supreme Court, because we have lots of money to waste while waiting on thousands of decisions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> Since so many Republican Congressmen confuse the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution......It might be a good idea
> 
> John Boehner reads the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or something. | cleveland.com
> 
> when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it.
> 
> Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> An excuse can be made that what Boehner actually waved is a booklet given to all Congress members, and it includes both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Problem, is, Boehner said, "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our founding fathers, who wrote in the preamble, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' "



Please tell me that you are joking?


----------



## shintao

rightwinger said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.  You DID take government in the 9th Grade, didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...I get it now
> 
> The Courts get to decide on Constitutionality....not the Congress
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day
Click to expand...


Then the bill will go back to congress, and onto Obama who will either offer his legal authority to definitions with a signing order, veto the bill, or write Executive Order and send it back to congress.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



What kind of American poser refers to his fellow left wing dogs as "comrades"? Or were you just being sarcastic and I missed it?


----------



## zzzz

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition?
> 
> Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable sentiment, but not this time....I really believe our new TEA Party class WILL be different......
Click to expand...


Ahhh, you have faith in them, just as many people who are celebrating the birth of Christ tomorrow have faith in Jesus. I pray that your faith is justified.


----------



## uscitizen

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition?
> 
> Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable sentiment, but not this time....I really believe our new TEA Party class WILL be different......
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are correct.  I myself have developed a cynicyism of govt based on long experience.

They will have to prove it to me with actions, I have no faith in politicians.


----------



## Big Fitz

oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em.  There we go.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Since so many Republican Congressmen confuse the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution......It might be a good idea
> 
> John Boehner reads the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or something. | cleveland.com
> 
> when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it.
> 
> Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> An excuse can be made that what Boehner actually waved is a booklet given to all Congress members, and it includes both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Problem, is, Boehner said, "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our founding fathers, who wrote in the preamble, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' "




is that the one ratified by 14 states? ...


----------



## California Girl

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition?
> 
> Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable sentiment, but not this time....I really believe our new TEA Party class WILL be different......
Click to expand...


I suspect SOME of them will be different. Others won't. I'll reserve judgement on the newbies until they actual take their seats.


----------



## Old Rocks

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> So far so good, I like what I'm seeing.
> 
> 
> We the people' to open next Congress
> House to read Constitution
> 
> By Stephen Dinan
> 
> The Washington Times
> 
> *The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.*
> 
> The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
> 
> 'We the people' to open next Congress - Washington Times



Are they going to omit the parts that they are proposing changing?


----------



## Revere

Which ones are those?


----------



## Old Rocks

California Girl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not you, too. i expect better from you.
> 
> there was already a thread on that. it's a retarded idea. and congress shouldn't be trying to usurp the constitution.
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists need to go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to talk down to people just because you don't agree with them, mo chara. I've maintained the same stance since I arrived on the board. It ain't news.
> 
> We ain't pretend constitutionalists. We are Constitutionalists. And... we ain't going anywhere. Get used to it.
Click to expand...


Except, of  course, for the parts that you disagree with


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why doing this would be an usurpation of, well, anything?
> 
> hey, if they pretend, then they will have put themselves up for ridicule with help from no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is not the role of the congress to decide what is constitutional or not. that is the role of the court. i went to law school because i loved studying court cases and the constitution does actually have meaning to me. but not this perverted version of what the constitution is that the pretend constitutionalists would turn it into. there have been more than 200 years of scholars debating, discussing, analyzing what the meaning and application of the constitution requires. the pretend constitutionalists make a mockery of it.  i don't count myself among the scholars and experts even though i've practiced law since i was 23. but i know for sure that the pretend constitutionalists haven't a clue.
> 
> and the pomp and circumstance of 'reading the constitution' to appease the pretend constitutionalists is a lot of pointless noise and purely for show.
> 
> it turns my stomach, actually.
> 
> /rant over. (but you asked).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your points, however could you imagine if say the SC started their session with a reading of the Const. ?
> 
> I don't think there would be enough ink to print the outrage and it would cause considerable angst between those that view the document differently.
> 
> In the end congresscritters as does the pres. take an oath upon election or reelection to support and defend the Constitution, bear true faith yada yada...I just dont see any harm here.
Click to expand...


There's no "harm" in it.

There's no harm in opening Congress with a recitation of _The Jabberwocky_ by Lewis Carroll either. Doesn't mean we should do it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Revere said:


> Which ones are those?



Birthright citizenship? The Census? The Post Office?

I've heard Conservatives on this site (and in Congress) rail against all of those specifically mentioned items in the Constitution.


----------



## Agit8r

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide whether a law is within the scope of the Constitution?   Congress???
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.  You DID take government in the 9th Grade, didn't you?
Click to expand...


According to SCOTUS precedent, construction is looser than a dance team captain's morals

...just sayin'


----------



## Agit8r

California Girl said:


> Good start. I would prefer to see each and every bill open with the precise Article/Amendment that gives Congress the power to enact said bill... and not this bullshit 'general welfare' crap that they constantly lie about.



yes, and none of this "common defence" bullcrap that they constantly lie about either


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1

zzzz said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but how many times do you see congressmen listening to the speaker? Usually they are texting or doing other things during other peoples speeches. Do you think they will sit quietly for the duration of the reading? And will they read the amendments that have been overturned like prohibition?
> 
> Its just another political grandstanding event. I don't believe anything will change. Once they get a taste of the power they have ... they will do like everyone else before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable sentiment, but not this time....I really believe our new TEA Party class WILL be different......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh, you have faith in them, just as many people who are celebrating the birth of Christ tomorrow have faith in Jesus. I pray that your faith is justified.
Click to expand...


As do I....even tho "Christmas" is really a pagan holiday and Christ wasn't really born today, but yea I do.

They were elected on this unique platform, they'll be fired on it too if they spit on it....


----------



## Big Fitz

Well when you appoint racist unethical and unqualified gits to the bench, you can rest assured that the quality of protection from those who desire to destroy the constitution to fade.

Wise latina my ass.


----------



## Greenbeard

Avatar4321 said:


> And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.



But the health care law cites specific Constitutional authority, right in the text (focuses mostly on the Commerce Clause). Under the new rule that means it must be okay, right?

Oh, legislation can cite Constitutional authority and you can disagree with it? Just like now? Bummer.


----------



## rightwinger

Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards


Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office.  I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em.  There we go.



Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office.  I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.
Click to expand...


Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em.  There we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years
Click to expand...

works great when you actually have justices who believe in the originlist view of the constitution too.  Something that has been in doubt since FDR threatened to pack the court and they went political in the 1960's.  We've been stuck with only 4 for far too long now.


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh what the hell, let's say fuck the constitution and just ram through all the fascist shit you lefties want and tell people to suck it up or shoot em.  There we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who questions the Constitutionality of a bill is allowed to take it up with the courts....Thats the way it has worked for 200+ years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> works great when you actually have justices who believe in the originlist view of the constitution too.  Something that has been in doubt since FDR threatened to pack the court and they went political in the 1960's.  We've been stuck with only 4 for far too long now.
Click to expand...


What makes our country great is we have justices who are conservative and justices who are liberal. It is the adjustments of policies and the swings from left to right that mean we eventually get it right

Our Constitution is the culmination of 200+ years of judicial interpretation.  This enables us to have a system that meets the needs of an evolving society


----------



## Big Fitz

Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.


----------



## The T

Big Fitz said:


> Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.


 
Indeed. And the Congress can turn right around and overrule the Courts.

The Courts NEVER have the Final say. It only appears that way to most.

The People do through Congress.


----------



## Cuyo

Intense said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1 Section 8:* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> *There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> Have you read the Constitution?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence *and general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that imply that Any claim of Federal Authority trumps the will of the People? It is the will of the People that trumps any Supremacy Clause or General Welfare Clause, which both have been seriously abused. The Original Intent of the Constitution was to protect both the States and the People of the United States from the Encroachment of Federal Authority, by Enumerating those Federal Authorities in both jurisdiction and power. You have denied, both the barriers and the intention for which and by which they were constructed. You have placed both the States and the People under the Authority of a Power designed to protect them from Tyranny, at the same time exempting the Federal Government from those restraints. Nice magic trick. Are you proud of yourselves? A Tyrant by any name is still a Tyrant. Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


Whoa Intense, all I did was point out the irony that Avy cited the very Section that contained the general welfare clause in the same post in which s/he claimed it didn't exist.  Easy with all the tyranny and evil omnipresent government stuff.  You're gonna give some of our less intelligent members nightmares.

And of course... Merry Christmas for the next 33 minutes!


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

loosecannon said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
> 
> If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  Why have judges to interpret it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only hope the Left has.....
> 
> 
> They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously you meant to say "the right".
Click to expand...


LMOAO, but they won't get the joke...


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

rightwinger said:


> Since so many Republican Congressmen confuse the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution......It might be a good idea
> 
> John Boehner reads the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or something. | cleveland.com
> 
> when Boehner joined the tea party, he waved a copy of "the Constitution" and read from it.
> 
> Except his words were from the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> An excuse can be made that what Boehner actually waved is a booklet given to all Congress members, and it includes both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Problem, is, Boehner said, "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our founding fathers, who wrote in the preamble, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ...' "



Thanks for the laugh, I needed a good one...


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office.  I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful.  How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch?  Directly against the constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Ex post facto_.  The skel fizzle has no idea what the words mean or how they are used, or he would not have written something as stupid as that.


----------



## goldcatt

Oh, I so see this coming back to bite them in the ass.


----------



## Sallow

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Speaker of the House Boehner can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution....maybe they should read it and have a test afterwards
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office.  I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.
Click to expand...


And point out in the Constitution where it has that sort of Litmus test.

Michelle Bachman would have failed miserably..btw.


----------



## JakeStarkey

goldcatt said:


> Oh, I so see this coming back to bite them in the ass.



You notice they almost all ran away.


----------



## zzzz

The T said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Checks and balances have nothing to do with political party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. And the Congress can turn right around and overrule the Courts.
> 
> The Courts NEVER have the Final say. It only appears that way to most.
> 
> The People do through Congress.
Click to expand...


Congress cannot over rule the courts if the court says it is unconstituional. They can ammend the Constitution and the state legislatures must concurr to overturn any constitutional ruling.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T is a radical leftist uber-leftist who always believes in the rule of the majority.


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that should be forced on every public official to validate they are competent to hold office.  I'm sure Nancy Peeloosely would have aced the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly doubtful.  How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch?  Directly against the constitution.
Click to expand...


At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution

So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm


----------



## zzzz

I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!!  Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????


----------



## rightwinger

zzzz said:


> I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!!  Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????



How many times do I get to count Grover Cleveland?


----------



## goldcatt

zzzz said:


> I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!!  Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????



I'm gonna say 50.

44 under the COTUS, I want to say 6 under the Articles of Confederation. The presidency was a real hot potato then.

Now you know I'll have to google and see if I got it right. 

ETA: Nope, I didn't. But I'm not telling.


----------



## zzzz

Forty Three people have served as President of the United States. Yet Obama is the 44th President. Yes Rightwinger, you can only count Grover once because I asked how many people served, not how many Presidents.  

But the point is could the politicos answer this correctly? If your running for that office should you not know your history? _*Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it?*_


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sarah and her gang are darn determined to repeat history.  You betcha wink wink.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Greenbeard said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the health care law cites specific Constitutional authority, right in the text (focuses mostly on the Commerce Clause). Under the new rule that means it must be okay, right?
> 
> .
Click to expand...




House bills are, traditionally, put through different committees including ones to determine if the bills are constitutional.

For some reason, the Left pushed this bill without allowing for this type of committee input

I wonder why? Funny how that works


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, She would have done better than Boehner
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubtful.  How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch?  Directly against the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution
> 
> So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm
Click to expand...


thanks for reminding me


----------



## Neotrotsky

zzzz said:


> Forty Three people have served as President of the United States. Yet Obama is the 44th President. Yes Rightwinger, you can only count Grover once because I asked how many people served, not how many Presidents.
> 
> But the point is could the politicos answer this correctly? If your running for that office should you not know your history? _*Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it?*_



Yes, we see that with the Left now


----------



## rightwinger

Neotrotsky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubtful.  How any ex post facto laws were passed under her watch?  Directly against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution
> 
> So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for reminding me
Click to expand...


Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves


----------



## Barb

Revere said:


> The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
> 
> If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  *Why have judges to interpret it?*



*#2, *, And therein lies the rub. The constitutionality of the republicans setting themselves up as the judicial branch, when they're, um, not.


----------



## Trajan

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



too true.


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least Pelosi can tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution
> 
> So could Palin.....if she wrote it on her palm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for reminding me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes


----------



## rightwinger

Neotrotsky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for reminding me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes
Click to expand...


When you follow Bush....you need them


----------



## M14 Shooter

rightwinger said:


> Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
> Won't be hard to justify


We all, at least all of we that know of these things, understand that the "General Welfare Clause" grants the power to tax and spend, but not the power to enact the legislation that defines that spending.  
That's what the following 16 clauses of Article I Section 8 are for.


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five fingers is not enough for all the blame Bush deserves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Papa Obama has his other hand and toes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you follow Bush....you need them
Click to expand...


and when your teleprompter breaks


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask them how many people served as President of the US!!  Wonder how many could give the correct answer. Do you know????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I get to count Grover Cleveland?
Click to expand...

Only by weight.  Same with Taft.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Neotrotsky said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or that you have to buy something
Click to expand...

That would be the dimwits version of the constitution.


----------



## AmericanFirst

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> and who's definition of what's 'constitutional'? rightwingnut 'originalists'??
> 
> the founding fathers were ok with slavery, didn't allow women the vote... and said only rich landowners can vote.
> 
> i'm pretty sure they didn't consider the issue of whether ledbetter's rights were violated by goodyear tires.
> 
> i like this from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are operating under the same set of rules. When Republicans lose, though, they call Democrats unpatriotic and unconstitutional. It&#8217;s like the Republicans think that the Constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, minorities and everything else that makes them uncomfortable,&#8221; the aide said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more: New GOP Constitution rule irks House Democrats | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
> 
> like it's real difficult to say 'the general welfare clause' or the 'commerce clause'. lol.. 'tards.
Click to expand...

You are right, the original constitution allowed slavery and not the woman vote. But they were changed the way they were supposed to be with amendments. The dimwits hate it when the constitution is followed, but too bad.


----------



## AmericanFirst

loosecannon said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.
> 
> What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)
> 
> It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.
Click to expand...

Bush was more constitutional than obamaturd and gore put together. Stop the socialist crying.


----------



## AmericanFirst

loosecannon said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy Clause only works for powers enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
> 
> If the Supremacy Clause allowed Congress to make any law it wanted, why have the Constitution?  Why have judges to interpret it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only hope the Left has.....
> 
> 
> They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously you meant to say "the right".
Click to expand...

No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The dimwits here are neither liberal or conservative.  They are either reactionaries or libertarians, the scum of American politics.


----------



## Jackson

AmericanFirst said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows the Constitution permits the government to tell you how many servings of vegetables you must eat in a day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or that you have to buy something
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be the dimwits version of the constitution.
Click to expand...


How many servings of a vegetable you should have a day ...and buy it for them..(School breakfeast and lunch programs);

or that you have to buy something for someone else (Health Insurance...)


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supremacy Clause and General Welfare Clause
> Won't be hard to justify
> 
> 
> 
> We all, at least all of we that know of these things, understand that the "General Welfare Clause" grants the power to tax and spend, but not the power to enact the legislation that defines that spending.
> That's what the following 16 clauses of Article I Section 8 are for.
Click to expand...


Your opinion, sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AmericanFirst said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.
> 
> What happens when a dem controlled congress is asked to support an unconstitutional presidentially sponsored article of legislation? (see 2006-2008 for answer)
> 
> It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors. But good luck there, nobody is more responsible for constitutionality creep than the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush was more constitutional than obamaturd and gore put together. Stop the socialist crying.
Click to expand...


Stop your loony libertarian whining.

ps: you wouldn't know a socialist from a social democrat from a social republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AmericanFirst said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only hope the Left has.....
> 
> 
> They have always needed the Courts to get their most unpopular ideas pushed onto the American People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you meant to say "the right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.
Click to expand...


You are so right, wizard of the loonies.  That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging.  The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you meant to say "the right".
> 
> 
> 
> No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so right, wizard of the loonies.  That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging.  The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.
Click to expand...



Jake,

it seems a little unfair to call him names for expressing a truth.

Unless, do you have some "stats"  to show how more "right wing" causes have had to use the courts than "left wing" to impose their agenda?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, obviously it is the left that needs the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so right, wizard of the loonies.  That's why the court battles on Obamacare are raging.  The liberals are trying . . . oh, that's right: they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jake,
> 
> it seems a little unfair to call him names for expressing a truth.
> 
> Unless, do you have some "stats"  to show how more "right wing" causes have had to use the courts than "left wing" to impose their agenda?
Click to expand...


I have no trouble with conservatives, centrists, or liberals.  They all care about America.  The libertarians are different matter: they appear to care only for themselves and nothing for the country that has given them opportunity to truly achieve.


----------



## nraforlife

rightwinger said:


> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence



In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.


----------



## rightwinger

nraforlife said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


Try reading it


----------



## jillian

rightwinger said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading it
Click to expand...


shhhhhhh... that would mean they actually have to learn something


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


"treasonous judges"?  Kiddo, we are not going back to 1791.


----------



## jillian

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "treasonous judges"?  Kiddo, we are not going back to 1791.
Click to expand...


even in 1791 they didn't think like that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loosecannon said:


> like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.


Really.
Specifically, how did the decisions in Bush v Gore violate the constitution?



> It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors.


According to whom/what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> like 2000-2008, virtually everything that happened under Bush, from Bush v. Gore on, was unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> Specifically, how did the decisions in Bush v Gore violate the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually IS the job of the courts to check the constitutionality of the other two branch's endeavors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom/what?
Click to expand...


Well, you can begin with the rationale used in Marbury.  You could go back and investigage how many states recognized favorably the concept of judicial review in their state constitutions as well as how many Founders wrote and thought about it.  

M14, your question has no probative relevance here at all.  The question of judicial review and the relevance of the 10th Amendment has no relevance to the OP, other than reading the Constitution at the Congress is a very good thing.  Maybe some of the social values conservatives will stop whining about amending their religious positions into our charter document.


----------



## Charles_Main

Avatar4321 said:


> It's a rule that should have always been in effect.
> 
> It also makes law suit challenges easier to define.



Exactly, it should cut down on Court cases as well. or at least make them quicker as the Defense of the law will be known before hand.

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would be up in arms about this rule. Unless of course they have plans to push through laws that have no constitutional Citing to justify them.

I also find it funny the left is trying to label the house leadership as radical. As that highlights just how far out of touch the left has come. as if wanting to spend with in our means, and make sure were are following the constitution are "Radical" ideas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure.  It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning.  Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure.  It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning.  Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.



It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure.  It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning.  Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.
Click to expand...


Of course some of the loony leftists are that way.  Just as some of the loony reactionaries far to the right think the health insurance reform law is unconstitutional.  The Pubs are certainly right to do this at the beginning of Congress (and hopefully every day), and the Dems are free to defend their legislation in the courts.  For anyone to suggest either side is of the devil is ludicrous and demonstrates just far out of the mainstream they troll.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure.  It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning.  Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.
Click to expand...


It's meaningless grandstanding.

And "Cons" eat it up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The lefties ate it up about the "evil" Bush and Cheney.  Both fringe wings are ridiculous.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

JakeStarkey said:


> The lefties ate it up about the "evil" Bush and Cheney.  Both fringe wings are ridiculous.



Yes, of course.


----------



## Cuyo

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the "left" is up in arms about the "right" and this new procedure.  It's a great idea, and it should have been done from the beginning.  Perhaps if they had done it in the Senate, maybe Joe McCarthy would have though twice about his approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears at least some on the left are upset about this, or at least want to try and twist and make it look like some crazy radical agenda item of the Republicans.
Click to expand...


Oh I wouldn't say 'Upset.'  Realistic about the fact that it's meaningless grandstanding is more like it.


----------



## rdean

I just saw on the news that rule has been in place since 1999 and they even gave the number.  Too bad I didn't write it down.


----------



## Jackson

Too bad they can't go back and review older laws and check them for their constitutionality.  (I.E>..Health care law...)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jackson said:


> Too bad they can't go back and review older laws and check them for their constitutionality.  (I.E>..Health care law...)



The law suits are the remedy.


----------



## EriktheRed

*Feh...*


----------



## NYcarbineer

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:

Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional.  When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...

1)  how will they justify their constitutionality?

2)  when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right, 

and you are wrong?

Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...


----------



## M14 Shooter

NYcarbineer said:


> Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:
> 
> Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional.  When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...
> 
> 1)  how will they justify their constitutionality?


They cannot - nor can anyone else. 
But then, you also cannot undo 80 years of entitlements in one year..


----------



## Bern80

NYcarbineer said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:
> 
> Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional.  When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...
> 
> 1)  how will they justify their constitutionality?
> 
> 2)  when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right,
> 
> and you are wrong?
> 
> Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...
Click to expand...



Well I think that's what the, shall we say....principled members of the right are afraid of. I am afraid it's not a question of if, simply when, the republicans will be shown for hypocrites for insisting on this rule. The day will come when they to would rather not have to defer to the constitution or maybe has (Patriot Act). 

I certainly think it's a good idea that politicians be required to consider the constitutionality of the laws they pass. Personally I don't think it gets so much as a passing thought now.


----------



## Inception

all we are going to see is a lot of reference to the common welfare clause. since it wont matter either way if the house wants to vote on if a bill is constitutional, nothing the democrats propose will ever reach the floor since the GOP is in control. 

But it will be interesting to see when this rule comes back to bite the GOP in the ass, since there are many things that they currently fund & support that are not in the constitution. ie many of the US departement (education, energy, homeland security, the air force) it also states nowhere in the constitution that the federal government should provide law makers with a pension or health care. so lets strip those things away from congress as well and make them pay for it out of their own pocket.


----------



## Vanquish

I hope that this law really educates a lot of people...and that's on both sides of the aisle.

The problem isn't with *requiring* this law...it's with *enforcing* this law.

Here's why:  let's say you pass this law (or it already exists). people can write anything the want in this section. who is going to "check to see that it's right?"  

wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!!  The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!

You can't do a "quick check to see if a law is constitutional"...because that's the job of the courts!

Whose version or interpretation of the constitution are you going to use, numbnuts?

Is the recent push to "only fund what's IN the Constitution" going to give way to the ACTUALITY that there are constitutional doctrines that arose through valid caselaw?  Are these wingnuts going to realize that the President was given the power to create executive agencies that ARENT IN the damn document?

This "we own the Constitutution and you hate it" bullshit has got to stop. No one group owns it...we all do.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vanquish said:


> wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!!  The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!


Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter, give us links, if you can, for what the Founders thought about judicial review in the 1780s.  Start with the state constitutions.


----------



## Inception

M14 Shooter said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!!  The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93) was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary.* Article III, section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,"* and such inferior courts as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision, though, for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide

so actually yes the constitution was amended to allow for Judicial Reveiw in 1789, this was then confirmed in 1801 when the power was first excised. 

Article III Section 2 states:

Section 2.

*The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, *the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

you do realize that without Judicial review, there would be no governing body to determine if a law is constitutional or not?


----------



## Vanquish

Exactly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Inception said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!!  The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.
Click to expand...

I know.  That's my point.  
Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review.  It took the power for itself by fiat.



> Article III Section 2 states:
> Section 2.
> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,


Yes....
Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?  If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?


----------



## Tech_Esq

NYcarbineer said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, haven't read the thread, here's the bottom line:
> 
> Conservatives tell us on a daily basis how department after department, agency after agency, etc., etc., in the Federal Government, are unconstitutional.  When the GOP Congress FUNDS these entities...
> 
> 1)  how will they justify their constitutionality?
> 
> 2)  when they do, will that confirm to all you 'constitutional' conservatives, that they are right,
> 
> and you are wrong?
> 
> Or, on the other hand, will that simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this whole exercise is a meaningless, comical gesture of empty symbolism and grandstanding...
Click to expand...


Or it will prove that 80 years of wrong direction can't be fixed in one year or even a dozen. It will take decades of concerted effort to "unfuck" a government that has been completely screwed for nearly a century. 

Case in point, if tomorrow the Supreme Court overturned Wickard v. Filburn creating a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the underlying basis for the supposed constitutionality of more than 50% of the government would be wiped away in a stroke. All of those agencies would have to dissolve. Imagine the disruption that would create.

Nope, this is hard long term work if you want to keept things working at the same time.


----------



## American Horse

I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.

Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person  originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.

Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed. 

The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked. 
But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've  been bad form.  It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.

Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter, judicial review existed in 9 of 13 state constitutions.  The Founders of the time generally spoke well of the doctrine.  It has served the country well.  You have to address the issue, which is not its constitutionality.


----------



## Inception

M14 Shooter said:


> Inception said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know.  That's my point.
> Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review.  It took the power for itself by fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article III Section 2 states:
> Section 2.
> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....
> Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?  If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?
Click to expand...


actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.


----------



## Vanquish

M14 Shooter said:


> Inception said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know.  That's my point.
> Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review.  It took the power for itself by fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article III Section 2 states:
> Section 2.
> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes....
> Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?  If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?
Click to expand...


I say that it does! That's exactly what those words mean in my estimation. I don't think the court had to "give" itself anything.  What's the point of a SCOTUS if they're not holding laws and the application of laws to the test??

I think some conservatives have entirely forgotten the concept of something that's *IMPLIED./B]  There are implied powers and implied doctrines that are valid and constitutional.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Article III Section 2 states:  Section 2.  The *judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, *arising under this Constitution,

Courts review and interpret laws.  SCOTUS was given the power over "all cases, in law and equity." No doubt exists SCOTUS had the constitutional authority to review _Marbury_.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Inception said:


> actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.


Um....   Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles. 
Article III was not added as an amendment.

AND...  nothing in Article III specifies a power of judicial review - the court gave this to istelf.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vanquish said:


> I say that it does! That's exactly what those words mean in my estimation.


Oh.  Well THAT settles it.
:roll:


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter, you have every right to your internet opinion.  However, that opinion has nothing to do with the actual constitutionality of Judicial Review.  The principle did not have to be expressly written any more than all of the other accepted principles of court procedures and authority.

Thomas Jefferson tried to intimidate Marshall's court by impeaching an associate justice.  Some of Jefferson's own party senators found the man not guity of the charges.

What can be done is this: amend to delete the power expressly.


----------



## Inception

M14 Shooter said:


> Inception said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.
> 
> 
> 
> Um....   Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles.
> Article III was not added as an amendment.
> 
> AND...  nothing in Article III specifies a power of judicial review - the court gave this to istelf.
Click to expand...


Can you please interpret this line of the constitution:

*judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution*

also The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state. Since Article III was added via The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93) on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress. 

sooooooo like i said Article III was added in 1789 and gave the authority of Judicial Review to the courts. Please try to read and educate before you try to spread false rumors and lies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Inception, _Marbury _finds that Congress cannot give additional powers to SCOTUS; that was the very meat of _Marbury_.  Thus Congress had no authority to add "judicial review" to the powers of SCOTUS.  The Court had the authority from the day was ratified by the several states.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Inception said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inception said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.
> 
> 
> 
> Um....   Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles.
> Article III was not added as an amendment.
> 
> AND...  nothing in Article III specifies a power of judicial review - the court gave this to istelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please interpret this line of the constitution:
> 
> *judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution*
Click to expand...

Its pretty self-explanatory, isnlt it?
What it does NOT say is that said power includes judicial review.  The fact that the court had to make a declaration to that effect necessitates that they took the power for themselves rather than invoked a power specifically granted by th COnstitution.



> also The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state.


Yes...  -I- passed American Government when I was in 8th grade.
You?  Not so sure.



> Since Article III was added via The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93) on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress.sooooooo like i said Article III was added in 1789....


You could not -possibly- be more wrong.  
Article III was part of the constitution as originally written by the convention in 1787 and thereafter ratified.  Further, An act of Congress cannot add an artiicle or amendment to the Constitution, nor give any powers to any portion of the government that is not alrready given said power BY ther constitution. 



> Please try to read and educate before you try to spread false rumors and lies.


The irony in this made me laugh so hard I almost blew my ice cream all over the monitor.  Thanks!


----------



## Bern80

Vanquish said:


> I hope that this law really educates a lot of people...and that's on both sides of the aisle.
> 
> The problem isn't with *requiring* this law...it's with *enforcing* this law.
> 
> Here's why:  let's say you pass this law (or it already exists). people can write anything the want in this section. who is going to "check to see that it's right?"
> 
> wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!!  The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!
> 
> You can't do a "quick check to see if a law is constitutional"...because that's the job of the courts!
> 
> Whose version or interpretation of the constitution are you going to use, numbnuts?
> 
> Is the recent push to "only fund what's IN the Constitution" going to give way to the ACTUALITY that there are constitutional doctrines that arose through valid caselaw?  Are these wingnuts going to realize that the President was given the power to create executive agencies that ARENT IN the damn document?
> 
> This "we own the Constitutution and you hate it" bullshit has got to stop. No one group owns it...we all do.



There is a difference between interpreting the constitution and passing legislation it simply doesn't allow. In some cases I'm sure legitimate arguments for and against some piece of legislation can be made. In other it should be fairly clear cut on where the feds authority to do something ends....say for example whether or not they have the authority to make people buy things.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Article III Section 2 states:  Section 2.  The *judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, *arising under this Constitution,
> 
> Courts review and interpret laws.  SCOTUS was given the power over "all cases, in law and equity." No doubt exists SCOTUS had the constitutional authority to review _Marbury_.



Again I guess the framers made a poor assumption of people's ability to understand the english language. 

Cripes you bolded and italicized it Jake and you STILL didn't get it right. 'judicial power shall extend to all *CASES*'. A piece of legislation is not a case, therefore SCOTUS has no power over it and NO authority to review it until a case is forwarded contesting it.


----------



## taichiliberal

Neotrotsky said:


> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!



Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!


*Constitutional Whitewash
What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.*

What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine


How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?

Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile  and ask for another.


----------



## nraforlife

rightwinger said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be hard to do
> 
> The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading it
Click to expand...


I have many times. However it is obvious you never have or perhaps you merely are too dim to comprehend what you read.


----------



## Vanquish

Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.

Obviously there were greater legal minds than yours who decided it should be granted. You luuze.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
> 
> Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
> 
> 
> Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
> 
> -how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
> -Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
> -Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
> -Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
> -We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
> 
> These are most troubling times indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid rule.
> 
> it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

So, what is your problem with 'doing it right the first time'?


----------



## Bern80

Vanquish said:


> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.



Are you kidding? That is exactly what SCOTUS does when they hear a case. The question of judicial review is not just about whether the judicial branch can determine a laws constituionality. Of course they do that. The question is how are they allowed to do it. Judicial review in my understanding essentially refers to the courts taking on the responsbility of determing the constitutionality of legislation WITHOUT actually hearing a case about it.


----------



## Vanquish

Nope.

For the court to hear a case about a law...it must be ripe.  There are other requirements...but that's a start.

Ripeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The court can't just pick a law and say "hmmm let's review this law" - it has to come up in a case...and a case that's necessary to be heard (it wont work itself out before it's been heard for example)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article III Section 2 states:  Section 2.  The *judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, *arising under this Constitution,
> 
> Courts review and interpret laws.  SCOTUS was given the power over "all cases, in law and equity." No doubt exists SCOTUS had the constitutional authority to review _Marbury_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I guess the *framers made a poor assumption of people's ability to understand the english language*.
> 
> Cripes you bolded and italicized it Jake and you STILL didn't get it right. 'judicial power shall extend to all cases.  A piece of legislation is not a case, therefore SCOTUS has no power over it and NO authority to review it until a case is forwarded contesting it.
Click to expand...



You understand the principle absolutely backwards, and the interp from 1803 is not going to change in our lifetimes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vanquish said:


> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.


Aside from the fact that this is incorrect....  So?
That something might be a good idea in no way excuses the fact that there's no Constitutional power that grants it.



> Obviously there were greater legal minds than yours who decided it should be granted.


Yes.   The court, in Marbury, who granted the power to themselves, doing so w/o any Constitutional authority to that effect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

M14 Shooter said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that this is incorrect....  So?
> That something might be a good idea in no way excuses the fact that there's no Constitutional power that grants it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there were greater legal minds than yours who decided it should be granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   The court, in Marbury, who granted the power to themselves, doing so w/o any Constitutional authority to that effect.
Click to expand...


The constitutionality of any legislation supporting a case claim is of course open to investigation by the appropriate court.  SCOTUS was the appropriate court to consider _Marbury_.  This was not a case on appeal; the court had immediate jurisdiction.


----------



## manifold

Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.

Expect this...

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare


----------



## goldcatt

Bern80 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? That is exactly what SCOTUS does when they hear a case. The question of judicial review is not just about whether the judicial branch can determine a laws constituionality. Of course they do that. The question is how are they allowed to do it. Judicial review in my understanding essentially refers to the courts taking on the responsbility of determing the constitutionality of legislation WITHOUT actually hearing a case about it.
Click to expand...



*facepalm*

Judicial review means just that. The JUDGES have the power to REVIEW, via an Article 3 case or controversy over which they have jurisdiction, legislative acts and other laws in order to determine their constitutionality. If there is no case they have no jurisdiction.

This is not rocket science.


----------



## goldcatt

manifold said:


> Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.
> 
> Expect this...
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare



It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those. 

Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?

It's going to be amusing.


----------



## manifold

goldcatt said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.
> 
> Expect this...
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those.
> 
> Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?
> 
> It's going to be amusing.
Click to expand...



Maybe they'll just include the entire text of the Constitution with every bill.


----------



## goldcatt

manifold said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.
> 
> Expect this...
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> commerce clause
> 
> general welfare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those.
> 
> Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?
> 
> It's going to be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they'll just include the entire text of the Constitution with every bill.
Click to expand...


Nah, I thought the whole point was to get the Members of Congress to read the constitution? Hiding it in a bill would be pointless.


----------



## nraforlife

Vanquish said:


> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
> 
> ...............................



Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
> 
> ...............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.
Click to expand...


American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.


----------



## Jackson

American Horse said:


> I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.
> 
> Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person  originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.
> 
> Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed.
> 
> The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked.
> But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've  been bad form.  It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.
> 
> Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case



That was not the point of reading the constitution.  It was not meant to be a history lesson, but a framework for their laws in the future.


----------



## rightwinger

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)


----------



## Jackson

rightwinger said:


> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)



What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.

 Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA;  Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded;  FCC and Space program, I don't know.  But of course, what do I know?

Hmmm...  could they name buildings and days anymore?  That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)



Discussed earlier in the thread, but some liberals are slow learners

Here

"What is currently not covered by the Constitution"

Literal no, but when it comes to enumerated powers it was decided long ago

_McCulloch v. Maryland_  (1819)- Justice Marshall:"We  admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are   limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the   sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national   legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the   powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable   that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most   beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within   the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,   which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but   consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are   constitutional," 

The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the   Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer to the only way of doing   something, but rather applies to various procedures for  implementing all  constitutionally established powers. "Let the end be  legitimate, let it  be within the scope of the constitution, and all  means which are  appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end,  which are not  prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the  constitution,  are constitutional."​So we have a loose  interpretation that allows many means to carry out their duties. But  they still have to be within the scope of the Constitution.
It does not mean Congress can do anything it wants. 

For example,

_United States v. Lopez_ (1995)

held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states." 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "We start with first principles.  The Constitution creates a Federal Government  of enumerated powers."  For the first time in sixty years the Court  found that in creating a  federal statute, Congress had exceeded the  power granted to it by the  Commerce Clause.


So your point about FBI, security etc not being allowed is really not  true nor does it support the idea that a our gov't can do anything it  wants.
Granted, some things you have mentioned ( I have not looked at all of  them) could be not "constitutional" , but to this day no one has  bothered to take them to court or make it big enough of an issue.

Needless to say, I hope, neither should popularity of something dictate  constitutionality of it. I suppose if Congress passed a law that said  you could have sex with your next door neighbors wife, some would like  that law. (I have seem my neighbor's wife that would not be a good law)


----------



## rightwinger

Jackson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.
> 
> Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA;  Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded;  FCC and Space program, I don't know.  But of course, what do I know?
> 
> Hmmm...  could they name buildings and days anymore?  That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.
Click to expand...


The Air Force was an arm of the Army which is allowed. There is no provisions in the Constitution for a branch of service called the  Air Force


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.
> 
> Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA;  Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded;  FCC and Space program, I don't know.  But of course, what do I know?
> 
> Hmmm...  could they name buildings and days anymore?  That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Air Force was an arm of the Army which is allowed. There is no provisions in the Constitution for a branch of service called the  Air Force
Click to expand...




Again, your analysis is flawed

see post above your last


Just a FYI

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps probably to be more "pure" in allegiance to the Constitution (1926-1947) 

What we know as the "Air Force" today was formed in 1947. Of course,  coming off the era of FDR, the era of the  "constitution did not mean  that much" or the "flexible constitution"  was started, this should be  no surprise. 


Thanks to   *westwall adding the following history*

Actually the Air Force began as a branch of the Army Signal Corps  (called naturally enough the Aviation Section) in 1914 and their first  operation was the punative operation against Pancho Villa in 1916 and by  that time the unit was called the First Aero Squadron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your approach is attempting the false notion of  people be accepting of some gov't therefore should be accepting of all and any forms of collectivism. 
Of course using that approach, one could say "hey if you like how the Post Office is run, wait till we get you health care"  or if you like the way DMV works......etc


In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau)  holds that the collective comes  before the  individual, our rights  come from the group not from God,  that the tribe  is the source of all  morality, and the general will is  the ultimate  religious construct and  so therefore the needs &#8212; and aims &#8212;  of the group  come before those of  the individual. 




 Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other    collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the  Rousseauian vision.

Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy  of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social  contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights  by the people. 

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has  proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to  pretend such choices do not exist.  Therefore, things like "Statism does  not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of  gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive  gov't functions that they so desire.  There is even the naive belief by  some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the  erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neotrotsky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discussed earlier in the thread, but some liberals are slow learners
> 
> Here
> 
> "What is currently not covered by the Constitution"
> 
> Literal no, but when it comes to enumerated powers it was decided long ago
> 
> _McCulloch v. Maryland_  (1819)- Justice Marshall:"We  admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are   limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the   sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national   legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the   powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable   that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most   beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within   the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,   which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but   consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are   constitutional,"
> 
> The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the   Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer to the only way of doing   something, but rather applies to various procedures for  implementing all  constitutionally established powers. "Let the end be  legitimate, let it  be within the scope of the constitution, and all  means which are  appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end,  which are not  prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the  constitution,  are constitutional."​So we have a loose  interpretation that allows many means to carry out their duties. But  they still have to be within the scope of the Constitution.
> It does not mean Congress can do anything it wants.
> 
> For example,
> 
> _United States v. Lopez_ (1995)
> 
> held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states."
> 
> Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "We start with first principles.  The Constitution creates a Federal Government  of enumerated powers."  For the first time in sixty years the Court  found that in creating a  federal statute, Congress had exceeded the  power granted to it by the  Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> So your point about FBI, security etc not being allowed is really not  true nor does it support the idea that a our gov't can do anything it  wants.
> Granted, some things you have mentioned ( I have not looked at all of  them) could be not "constitutional" , but to this day no one has  bothered to take them to court or make it big enough of an issue.
> 
> Needless to say, I hope, neither should popularity of something dictate  constitutionality of it. I suppose if Congress passed a law that said  you could have sex with your next door neighbors wife, some would like  that law. (I have seem my neighbor's wife that would not be a good law)
Click to expand...


Thank you for a good discussion, Neo.  Yes, SCOTUS will make the final determination of constitutionality of the law, while we will have our own private opinions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The exclusion of Rosseau's influence on the Founders' thinking and philosophy, by some, reveals a shallow, uninformed, and illiterate understanding of the document itself.  The Founders clearly recognized both Locke's concept of liberty and freedom and the necessity of Rosseau's social compact for an united country.


----------



## manifold

rightwinger said:


> What is currently not covered by the Constitution
> 
> - Space Program
> - Medical Research Funding
> - Interstate Highways
> - US Air Force
> - FBI
> - US Parks System
> - FCC
> 
> 
> It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)



There is a difference between 'unconstitutional' and 'not guaranteed by the Constitution.'

None of the things you list are guaranteed in any way by the Constitution.  The debate over their 'constitutionality' is a little more nuanced and gray, even if largly academic today.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> The exclusion of Rosseau's influence on the Founders' thinking and philosophy, by some, reveals a shallow, uninformed, and illiterate understanding of the document itself.  The Founders clearly recognized both Locke's concept of liberty and freedom and the necessity of Rosseau's social compact for an united country.




No exclusion was stated or can be found, except in your mind. However, most would agree that it was extremely less when compared to others.
Of course, some would say that your attempt to characterize it as such reveals is shallow and pathetic personality. But what do they know....


Even Rousseau's recognized that man could not have any 'social contract' without abandoning their claims of natural rights. 

No doubt, you would agree that any attempt to make Rousseau's influence appear to supersede Locke's on our Founding Fathers would be sheer buffoonery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You clearly do not understand R's impact or its quality on the Founders and the Constitution.  If you think a social compact was not a deliberate quality of the deliberation, you are either illiterate to the process or deliberately deceitful.

Neo, you can't rewrite history.  Repeating the lie over and over and over does not make your silliness so.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> You clearly do not understand R's impact or its quality on the Founders and the Constitution.  If you think a social compact was not a deliberate quality of the deliberation, you are either illiterate to the process or deliberately deceitful.
> 
> Neo, you can't rewrite history.  Repeating the lie over and over and over does not make your silliness so.



Oh you mean like cutting out people's remarks from your post-
got it

From my former post, I stated:_No doubt, you would agree that any attempt to make Rousseau's influence  appear to supersede Locke's on our Founding Fathers would be sheer  buffoonery.

_​Do you really want to go on the record and say that Rousseau had a greater influence than Locke?



Just a side note 

In your "claim" that I do not understand Rousseau, I would like to point out that at least I can spell his name correct.  (see your post from before #294)

Granted, a "Red Herring", but in this case with your pontification, it is all too fun.

I am glad to see that we can add to your interesting history of the world

Along with your claim that statism exists nowhere in the world, we can now add that Rousseau had more influence over the founding of this nation than Locke.

Jake, did you ever work at Pravda?


----------



## Vanquish

manifold said:


> The debate over their 'constitutionality' is a little more nuanced and gray, even if largely academic today.



And this is what pisses me off about Republicans. (Trust me, Dems piss me off too!) They want to make the Constitution into this simplistic checklist...without any understanding of the constitutional doctrines and case law that have unfurled over the years. All of it based on what IS constitutional...but not actually IN the constitution.

They've done a great job at pushing a SIMPLE message that resonates with people...but it's pulling the wool over people's eyes...and that's what's so damn frustrating.

This whole mantra of  "It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!" sounds great coming out of Palin's mouth, but it's a complete manipulation of middle America.


----------



## Wry Catcher

I love it.  Such foolishness on open display:

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States  shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that *although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action*. Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Alex, I will take Disinformation Agents for $1000".  Who here has ever said that Rousseau's influence was greater than Locke's on the Founders?  Who here has implied that the Founders did not believe in the Social Compact?  Who here has projected when mentioning _Pravda_?

"Alex, *what *is Neotrotsky!"


----------



## Neotrotsky

Who has implied the following
One hint, rhymes with Fake

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal  freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking ...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why do you lie, Neo?  I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above.  You are not mainstream at all, Neo.  But you pretend you are.  The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.  Have you listed a mainstream scholar, jurist, academic, politician, leader, or media in support of your non-mainstream mantra?


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Why do you lie, Neo?  I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above.  You are not mainstream at all, Neo.  But you pretend you are.  The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.




Jake,

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.
Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so

Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?

I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.
You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.

Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about


----------



## midcan5

Kinda silly rule and representative of the content and character of the new members. Childish tantrums and obfuscation. Aren't these adults who were elected as representatives of the people and tasked with carrying out the desires of their constituents?  I realize for most republicans their constituents are the wealthy and the corporations, so given that fact, everything the new members would do would be unconstitutional? 'Citizens United' helped though.  Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World Now if only the constitution included the words, 'we hold this truth, money talks louder than people's rights.' 


"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work.  The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government.  The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups."
Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


----------



## Neotrotsky

midcan5 said:


> Kinda silly rule and representative of the content and character of the new members. Childish tantrums and obfuscation. Aren't these adults who were elected as representatives of the people and tasked with carrying out the desires of their constituents?  I realize for most republicans their constituents are the wealthy and the corporations so given that fact, everything the new members would do would be unconstitutional? Citizens United helped though.  Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World Now if only the constitution included the words, 'we hold this truth, money talks, people walk.'
> 
> 
> "Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work.  The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government.  The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups."
> Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon





Wall Street gave no money to Papa Obama?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



If it bites them in the ass, then it SHOULD bite them in the ass.  I'm no happier with Republicans playing fast and loose with the Constitution than I am with Democrats doing it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Neotrotsky said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is their job....
> 
> Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
> 
> The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
> 
> Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
> 
> or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all! But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
> 
> Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional?
> 
> Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
> 
> Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with.....
Click to expand...


On the contrary, I DEFINITELY suggest the Democrats run with that slogan.  I haven't had a laugh like that since Bill Clinton told us he couldn't define "is".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they would have helped you a lot
> 
> 
> But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
> 
> Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing  they are constitutional?
> 
> Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
> 
> Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are laws out there right now that are Unconstitutional. It's not the job of congress to check a law's constitutionality. That is the job of both the people and the courts.
Click to expand...


Really?  It's really not the job of Congress to consider the Constitution and the limits of Congressional power when passing laws? Seriously?  That's the argument you want to go with?

That's like saying that, as a parent, I have no obligation to consider the legal limits of my disciplinary power when punishing my kids.  That's for CPS to worry about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> Deporting illegal immigrants?
> 
> NOPE!



Article I, Section 8:


Clause 4._ To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_ and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> War on Drugs?
> 
> NOPE!



Article I, Section 8:


Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Regulating commerce definitely includes deciding which items are and are not legal to sell in the United States.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Agit8r said:


> War on Terror?
> 
> NOPE!



Article I, Section 8:


Clause 11. _To declare War_, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cuyo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under General Welfare and commerce.
> 
> Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.
> 
> Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1 Section 8:* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> *There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution
> Have you read the Constitution?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence *and general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8, have you read the Constitution?
Click to expand...


I guess the real question to you should be, "Can you understand English?"


----------



## Cecilie1200

American Horse said:


> I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.
> 
> Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person  originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.
> 
> Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed.
> 
> The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked.
> But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've  been bad form.  It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.
> 
> Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case



Seems to me that the point was not a history lesson, but a reminder of what laws and limitations are actually in force, so they can be abided by.  I realize that the Democrats wanted to turn this into nothing more than an opportunity to denigrate the United States and quibble about any tangent they could find, but I just don't see facilitating that as a good idea.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neotrotsky said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you lie, Neo?  I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above.  You are not mainstream at all, Neo.  But you pretend you are.  The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.   Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so  Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?  I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.   You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.  Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about
Click to expand...


Neo, why when you are caught in a lie, you then imply falsely.  That is still a lie.  Your points are set up as _either or_, but the truth is not at either end.  That is why you are not mainstream, and that is why you dropped above my request for you to give my mainstream support for your very far right positions.  You can't.

America will easily survive you and those who think like you.  So support the GOP but your advice won't be taken.


----------



## Neotrotsky

JakeStarkey said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you lie, Neo?  I never said 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 above.  You are not mainstream at all, Neo.  But you pretend you are.  The GOP wants your vote but not your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.   Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so  Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?  I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.   You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.  Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not, you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neo, why when you are caught in a lie, you then imply falsely.  That is still a lie.  Your points are set up as _either or_, but the truth is not at either end.  That is why you are not mainstream, and that is why you dropped above my request for you to give my mainstream support for your very far right positions.  You can't.
> 
> America will easily survive you and those who think like you.  So support the GOP but your advice won't be taken.
Click to expand...


Jake,

It is your story and you can tell it anyway you want and any way
that makes you feel better

Go back over your posts, you implied explicitly as much.
Of course, if you don't believe these statements, then say so

Sadly, your belief system will not allow you, will it?
(that fact that you can not do the above proves my point)

I am more mainstream than you, sorry but it is true.
You have been just telling yourself for so long that you are "mainstream" that you have become to believe it.

Perhaps your trying so hard to shape the US into something it is not,  you have lost sight of the truth- What the US is really about
---------------------------------------------------


Here are questions again-pretty straight forward statements
We would not want to forgot because of your editing what they were now

Of course, feel free to answer with exceptions if "either or " does not work for you
The world awaits.... prove where I am telling lies (this should be good) 


-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation 
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion 
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal  freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lies mean you state something (such as I believe the above points) when I have said of the sort.  That is a lie, Neo.

Nothing in my statements explicitly or implicitly indicate I believe those points.  When you say otherwise, that is a lie, Neo.

I don't have to answer your list, but I will ask you to do so. You are not mainstream but a very small part far far to the right, who have no influence, but the GOP will take your vote.  Now please clearly answer these, then I will be glad to.  We all wait for your answers.

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


----------



## signelect

Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word.  I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone.  Remember that courts are run by lawyers.  Keep your head down.


----------



## signelect

congress should keep the constitution first in all they do.  It is for everyone, not only one like people like to make it.


----------



## nraforlife

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
> 
> ...............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.
Click to expand...


No jake it is only ignorant fools such as YOU who disagree. Bugger off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No jake it is only ignorant fools such as YOU who disagree. Bugger off.
Click to expand...


I imagine John Marshall, just like John Roberts today, laugh when they think of folks like you.


----------



## nraforlife

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No jake it is only ignorant fools such as YOU who disagree. Bugger off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imagine John Marshall, ...................
Click to expand...


You imagine, i will go with Reality


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No jake it is only ignorant fools such as YOU who disagree. Bugger off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine John Marshall, ...................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You imagine, i will go with Reality
Click to expand...


nralife lives in a delusional world of his internet opinion shared by perhaps six other persons.


----------



## taichiliberal

Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!


Constitutional Whitewash
What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280249/

How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?

Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.


----------



## Barb

taichiliberal said:


> Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
> 
> 
> Constitutional Whitewash
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
> 
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
> 
> How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
> *The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?*
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.



Oh, sweetness. Bad example.
Only ONE stood against that, and yes, she was a dem, but she stood alone, ALONE. Like, um, all by her damnedself. 
Barbara Lee. 
My first two names. That little bit made me happy.
The ONLY little bit that made me happy. 
And that she WAS a Dem.
But still, you have to understand the pressure they ALL were under, and the craven political *self* preservation they worked within. It was an (off) election year. It had already been ESTABLISHED that iffen you weren't with the WH you were with those wild eyed devils that wanted us converted or kilt. It was  HOLY WAR (THAT WASN'T really), and GAWD KNOWS that our secular nation is TOTALLY AGAINST a theocracy (unless it was the Cold war, which pitted us GAWD fearing Christians against those GAWDLESS Communists),  that stoned women for being impure....
unless they want birth control.
For Christ sakes people.
It really doesn't GET any more ludicrous.
Its ALL the same fucking PAGE of Leviticus,
except for the shellfish
the tweed
the haircuts
and the hypocrisy.
EMBRACE it. ALL of you.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
> 
> 
> Constitutional Whitewash
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
> 
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
> 
> How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
> The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.


Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

signelect said:


> Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word.  I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone.  Remember that courts are run by lawyers.  Keep your head down.



You made a premise.  Got any proof that the Right is any better than Left about the goodness of the Constitution.  I think both far left and far right don't like it particularly.


----------



## Vanquish

> Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word. I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone. Remember that courts are run by lawyers. Keep your head down.



More partisan bullshit.  The left loves the constitution just as much as the right. Freedom of Speech...Due Process...Right to Vote...remember all that? Those are usually liberal issues.

It's ridiculous for someone to post that one side or the other loves the constitution more. Makes you sound like an idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz

> The left loves the constitution just as much as the right.


How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?

Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.


----------



## Vanquish

Bah. They both love it...albeit mostly different parts. To say one side doesn't like it makes someone a complete buffoon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vanquish said:


> Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word. I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone. Remember that courts are run by lawyers. Keep your head down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More partisan bullshit.  The left loves the constitution just as much as the right. Freedom of Speech...Due Process...Right to Vote...remember all that? Those are usually liberal issues.
> 
> It's ridiculous for someone to post that one side or the other loves the constitution more. Makes you sound like an idiot.
Click to expand...


I said far left and far right don't like the Constitution, and I certainly stand by it.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the left think the constitution is a nasty word. I have read nearly all of it and it reads pretty good and looks like it was originally designed to benefit everyone. Remember that courts are run by lawyers. Keep your head down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More partisan bullshit.  The left loves the constitution just as much as the right. Freedom of Speech...Due Process...Right to Vote...remember all that? Those are usually liberal issues.
> 
> It's ridiculous for someone to post that one side or the other loves the constitution more. Makes you sound like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said far left and far right don't like the Constitution, and I certainly stand by it.
Click to expand...


Both sides support the constitution when they see fit, and are willing to bend it to meet their needs as well.

The one example on the left that I point out is their support for Roe V Wade. IMO whether you support abortion or not, if you love our Constitution you should be against Roe V Wade. As IMO that ruling clearly expanded the Feds power into an Area meant for the states. However most on the left seem willing to over look the questionable constitutionality of the ruling because they like the out come.

As the saying goes, the Ends do not justify the means.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.



Big Fitz said:


> The left loves the constitution just as much as the right.
> 
> 
> 
> How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
> 
> Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> More partisan bullshit.  The left loves the constitution just as much as the right. Freedom of Speech...Due Process...Right to Vote...remember all that? Those are usually liberal issues.
> 
> It's ridiculous for someone to post that one side or the other loves the constitution more. Makes you sound like an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said far left and far right don't like the Constitution, and I certainly stand by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both sides support the constitution when they see fit, and are willing to bend it to meet their needs as well.
> 
> The one example on the left that I point out is their support for Roe V Wade. IMO whether you support abortion or not, if you love our Constitution you should be against Roe V Wade. As IMO that ruling clearly expanded the Feds power into an Area meant for the states. However most on the left seem willing to over look the questionable constitutionality of the ruling because they like the out come.
> 
> As the saying goes, the Ends do not justify the means.
Click to expand...


Very good.  The wacks wrap themselves up in the flag and drive to knife the other side.  Homers from the far right and far left need to be put down by the great center of American decency and honor.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vanquish said:


> Bah. They both love it...albeit mostly different parts. To say one side doesn't like it makes someone a complete buffoon.



Which side is objecting to having it read in Congress?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah. They both love it...albeit mostly different parts. To say one side doesn't like it makes someone a complete buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which side is objecting to having it read in Congress?
Click to expand...


Neither side, you sissy sweetmeat.


----------



## taichiliberal

Barb said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
> 
> 
> Constitutional Whitewash
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
> 
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
> 
> How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
> *The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?*
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sweetness. Bad example.
> Only ONE stood against that, and yes, she was a dem, but she stood alone, ALONE. Like, um, all by her damnedself.
> Barbara Lee.
> My first two names. That little bit made me happy.
> The ONLY little bit that made me happy.
> And that she WAS a Dem.
> But still, you have to understand the pressure they ALL were under, and the craven political *self* preservation they worked within. It was an (off) election year. It had already been ESTABLISHED that iffen you weren't with the WH you were with those wild eyed devils that wanted us converted or kilt. It was  HOLY WAR (THAT WASN'T really), and GAWD KNOWS that our secular nation is TOTALLY AGAINST a theocracy (unless it was the Cold war, which pitted us GAWD fearing Christians against those GAWDLESS Communists),  that stoned women for being impure....
> unless they want birth control.
> For Christ sakes people.
> It really doesn't GET any more ludicrous.
> Its ALL the same fucking PAGE of Leviticus,
> except for the shellfish
> the tweed
> the haircuts
> and the hypocrisy.
> EMBRACE it. ALL of you.
Click to expand...


Oh honeybunch, you overlooked that I've made TWO seperate points:

1)  The nonsense about EVERY little item in Congress meeting some strick interpretation of the Constituion is bogus, as the Shrub & company passed NUMEROUS bills WITHOUT Dems being in House.

2)  The stipulation for the Iraq war was that the Shrub & company had to PROVE to the Congress that there was evidence of imminent threat to US interests.....the Shrub & Company also had to prove such to the UN......THEY DID NEITHER,  and if you research properly you'll note that both the UN and various Congressmen/Senators stated such.

So all this nonsense about "constitutionality" from the GOP is at best nonsense, at least hypocrisy.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
> 
> 
> Constitutional Whitewash
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
> 
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
> 
> How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
> The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.
Click to expand...


The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub.  The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.

My previous points stand.  Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.


----------



## taichiliberal

JakeStarkey said:


> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left loves the constitution just as much as the right.
> 
> 
> 
> How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
> 
> Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.


----------



## Cecilie1200

taichiliberal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
> 
> Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness".  Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate.  The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side.  That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate.  The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side.  That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.



Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.


----------



## M14 Shooter

taichiliberal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
> 
> Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Click to expand...

The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't.  Simple, really.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
> 
> 
> Constitutional Whitewash
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
> 
> What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
> 
> How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
> The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?
> 
> Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub.  The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.
> 
> My previous points stand.  Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.

You may have forgotten about the "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords incident, but we haven't.  How about Tom Daschle's control for I believe it was 2 years, plus the years it was a 50/50 split.

Nice try, lousy lie.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment?  "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media?  The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute?  How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services?  The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
> 
> Love the Constitution?  laughable.  Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Click to expand...

You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?

How about we turn half the ABC news hours over to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge, Coulter and the like?  At least then the news on all networks but Fox will become more balanced.  Fox at least would remain pretty much the same.  How about some real conservatives on MSNBS doing editorial work?

Fire Krugman off the NYTimes editorial page and put in David Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher or G. Gordon Liddy instead with out editorial softening.

You claim the fairness doctrine is for broadening access, when really it's targetted to only shut down your philosophical contrarians.

In the marketplace of ideas, socialism loses every time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate.  The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side.  That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
Click to expand...


Insisting that both sides giving the other's POV is not unAmerican at all.  There is no freedom of press issue at all here.


----------



## taichiliberal

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness".  Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
Click to expand...


  When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now.  What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda.  Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing.  Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.

Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.


----------



## taichiliberal

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate.  The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side.  That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
Click to expand...


Puh-leeze!  Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness.  How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft?  They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.


----------



## taichiliberal

M14 Shooter said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't.  Simple, really.
Click to expand...


Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub.  The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.
> 
> My previous points stand.  Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.
> 
> You may have forgotten about the "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords incident, but we haven't.  How about Tom Daschle's control for I believe it was 2 years, plus the years it was a 50/50 split.
> 
> Nice try, lousy lie.
Click to expand...



*Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, as it's prone to any jackass editing it.  You should improve your research skills, Fritz.  Here, for your education on the Senate at the time in question:*
Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005) 

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party:  Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007) 

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party:  Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009) 

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party:  Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.


U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Party Division


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fitz, when he is being a homer, doesn't worry about sources or bias.  His bias is just fine.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer.  The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system.  The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that?  Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion?  Is that not the American way?  Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street.  And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law.  Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
> 
> You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters.  Who do you think you are?  Just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?
> 
> My error.....I should have put "broadcast" before MEDIA.  As this explains:
> 
> FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
> 
> How about we turn half the ABC news hours over to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge, Coulter and the like?  At least then the news on all networks but Fox will become more balanced.  Fox at least would remain pretty much the same.  How about some real conservatives on MSNBS doing editorial work?
> 
> How about you stop acting silly.....the Fairness Doctrine allowed for some portion of broadcasting to reflect contrary views.  The neocon clowns you mention all congregate on 77WABC Talk Radio.....why don't you have at least one hour of Amy Goodman or Tom Hartmann there?
> 
> To say Fox is balanced is a joke  Media Matters and Fair.org consistently use their own broadcast transcripts and compares them to documented facts to show their bias.....YOU need to understand how bias in broadcasting is achieved.  Case in point:  I can get information on subjects from WBAI Pacifica Broadcasting that ABC NEWS WON'T cover.  Case in point: journalist Lora Flanders, Mark Levine, and Amy Goodman were WAY ahead of ABC, NBC and CBS regarding reporting on 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq invasion...but RARELY given credit.
> 
> 
> Fire Krugman off the NYTimes editorial page and put in David Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher or G. Gordon Liddy instead with out editorial softening.
> 
> You make the error of confusing the editorial page with the hard news content.  Big difference.  The NY Times was the darling of the neocon parrots and pundits when they were carrying Judith Miller's Shrub friendly WMD lies and the vendetta on Valerie Plame.  THAT was biased and bad news....but guys like YOU Fitz had NO PROBLEM...until the truth comes out and then the NY Times becomes liberal evil.  Give me a fucking break, will ya Fitz?
> You claim the fairness doctrine is for broadening access, when really it's targetted to only shut down your philosophical contrarians.
> 
> Who's reality are you referring to?  Certainly not mine, nor the world when the Fairness Doctrine was active.  I strongly suggest YOU read the link I provided.In the marketplace of ideas, socialism loses every time.
Click to expand...


Fitz, WTF are you babbling about?  This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.).  The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.  

So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone who believes that socialism invariably follows progressivism is, simply put, a fucking idiot.

Progressivism is a political process that introduces reform to society, culture, economics, and politics.  The process can be conservative (anti prostitution, temperance, anti pornography, pro life) and can be liberal (liberalized drug laws, pro life, stricter gun laws).

Fitz is a homer, no more, a simple revisionist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

taichiliberal said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness".  Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now.  What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda.  Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing.  Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.
> 
> Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.
Click to expand...


No, back then, all we had were insane blatherings from the OTHER side.

Good of you to show us what great defenders of the First Amendment liberals REALLY are by yearning for the days when the whole annoying freedom of speech thing was suppressed, and you and your kind could bask in the luxury of never having to hear anyone you disagree with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

taichiliberal said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate.  The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side.  That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puh-leeze!  Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness.  How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft?  They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.
Click to expand...


So what you're telling us is that the "journalistic greats" weren't great enough to be able to "hone their craft" in a world where they didn't have government censoring viewpoints?

Sorry, but anyone who can't exist in a media that's open to all viewpoints is neither great nor deserving of said existence, and should go whine and pule to someone who gives a damn.


----------



## Cecilie1200

taichiliberal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going off topic for a second:  For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't.  Simple, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".
Click to expand...


Only a really simpleminded person would call the NEED to be given air time, instead of being able to earn it like one's competitors, anything BUT a crutch.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CeCelie1200 is a broken-record homer, no sense, no reason, no real Americanism.

We are all served best by fair play, not one-sided revisionism unfounded in our history despite her blathering.

No wonder we got beat in 2008 with morons like her on our side.


----------



## taichiliberal

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone who believes that socialism invariably follows progressivism is, simply put, a fucking idiot.
> 
> Progressivism is a political process that introduces reform to society, culture, economics, and politics.  The process can be conservative (anti prostitution, temperance, anti pornography, pro life) and can be liberal (liberalized drug laws, pro life, stricter gun laws).
> 
> Fitz is a homer, no more, a simple revisionist.



I agree with your points here.....except I don't know what a "homer" is.


----------



## taichiliberal

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness".  Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now.  What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda.  Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing.  Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.
> 
> Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, back then, all we had were insane blatherings from the OTHER side.
> 
> 
> Good of you to show us what great defenders of the First Amendment liberals REALLY are by yearning for the days when the whole annoying freedom of speech thing was suppressed, and you and your kind could bask in the luxury of never having to hear anyone you disagree with.
Click to expand...


All you're doing now is just the a-typical neocon psycho babble that clowns like Levin, Limbaugh, Beck and Savage court on their shows.

Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what went on or is going on.....which is why you avoided my points.  Here genius, a primer for you to do some honest research....if you have the guts:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications


----------



## taichiliberal

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puh-leeze!  Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness.  How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft?  They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're telling us is that the "journalistic greats" weren't great enough to be able to "hone their craft" in a world where they didn't have government censoring viewpoints?
> 
> Sorry, but anyone who can't exist in a media that's open to all viewpoints is neither great nor deserving of said existence, and should go whine and pule to someone who gives a damn.
Click to expand...


Pay attention and stop blowing smoke, Cecelie......when you have Clear Channel buy up local radio stations and enforce a right wing format to be carried, the locals are deprived of "all viewpoints" from those stations.  Again, YOU need to do some honest research....like what Murrow went through to do honest research, interview and commentary regard McCarthy.

FYI, journalist like Maddow, Flanders, Amy Goodman...investigative journalist like Mark Levine, etc., etc.  are WAY ahead of the curve when it came to 9/11 and Iraq....but folk like YOU would NEVER hear of them due to bias via the Main Stream Media  (except for Maddow, who's made it to MSNBC).

Again....neocon parrots AVOID THE QUESTION.  How can you bitch and moan about a liberal bias in the media but then REFUSE to back a Fairness Doctrine that would curtail that bias by it's very definition?


----------



## taichiliberal

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't.  Simple, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a really simpleminded person would call the NEED to be given air time, instead of being able to earn it like one's competitors, anything BUT a crutch.
Click to expand...


And only a TRUE SIMPLETON who doesn't understand what the Fairness Doctrine was and WHY it existed would make a statement such as yours, Cecelie.  For  your education:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications


----------



## taichiliberal

JakeStarkey said:


> CeCelie1200 is a broken-record homer, no sense, no reason, no real Americanism.
> 
> We are all served best by fair play, not one-sided revisionism unfounded in our history despite her blathering.
> 
> No wonder we got beat in 2008 with morons like her on our side.



Does she realize that her mindset is an open door to a fascist state?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CeCelie doesn't think, simply blathers.


----------



## Charles_Main

Every time I see this thread I laugh.

The Idea that a congress elected on the idea of cutting spending and limiting federal Power is Radical is just to funny.

A clear example of just how far out of touch liberals are today.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't group all the righty ladies equally, though.  I disagree with much Foxfyre has to say, but she says it well and almost always politely.  Chanel can be much tougher but take the time to read her.  Stephanie is simply amusing; I mean it, she is fun.  CeCelie1200 is simply rabid dog.  WillowTree?  I like her, period.


----------



## taichiliberal

Charles_Main said:


> Every time I see this thread I laugh.
> 
> The Idea that a congress elected on the idea of cutting spending and limiting federal Power is Radical is just to funny.
> 
> A clear example of just how far out of touch liberals are today.



Charlie...go back and read the opening post of this thread so you'll know WTF you're talking about.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Fitz, WTF are you babbling about?  This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.).  The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.
> 
> So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?



This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.

I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.

But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitz, WTF are you babbling about?  This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.).  The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.
> 
> So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  I give back what I get....and when people make negative generalizations/accusations against me just because I disagree with them, I respond in kind.  What pisses YOU off, Fitz, is that I can back up what I say with FACTS and the logic that is derived from those facts.  YOU can't.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  You can repeat that lie until doomsday, Fitz...but reality has a way of putting that BS in check.  Hell, Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs have DOCUMENTED the bias and slanted news coverage by FOX over the years.  Here, for your education:  The Most Biased Name in News They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.
> 
> Once again, Fitz parrots the neocon party line....heavy on the headlines but missing the DETAILS of the story.  For those of you that don't know, Williams had been at odds with NPR for a LONG time, as his appearances on FOX political review panel resulted in him voicing opinions and viewpoints that CONTRADICTED core values of NPR that Williams was a representative and headliner of.  Essentially, it's like having a member of the GOP keep showing up at Dem fundraisers and touting the Dem agenda.  After awhile, the home team is going to cut you loose.
> 
> I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled. Which means absolutely NOTHING, Fitz, as your demonstrated neocon myopia constantly deviates from reality, as I've demonstrated in our exchanges.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.
> 
> A fantastic claim by Fitz.....if only he could provide ANY historically valid documentation to support his allegation.  If Fitz only had the personal honesty to READ the link I provided regarding the Fairness Doctrine, he would know that the chronology of history does not match his questionable recollection.
> 
> But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.
Click to expand...


As you can see, folks....when willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots like Fitz encounter historical facts and the logic that makes a fool of them, they just babble  lame insults, supposition and conjecture and right wingnut rhetoric in the hopes that no one will notice .  Check out Posts #350 & #352 to see what has sent Fitz into such a tizzy.  To date, Fitz cannot/will not answer a simple question:  If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?


----------



## Charles_Main

taichiliberal said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitz, WTF are you babbling about?  This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.).  The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.
> 
> So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  I give back what I get....and when people make negative generalizations/accusations against me just because I disagree with them, I respond in kind.  What pisses YOU off, Fitz, is that I can back up what I say with FACTS and the logic that is derived from those facts.  YOU can't.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  You can repeat that lie until doomsday, Fitz...but reality has a way of putting that BS in check.  Hell, Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs have DOCUMENTED the bias and slanted news coverage by FOX over the years.  Here, for your education:  The Most Biased Name in News They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.
> 
> Once again, Fitz parrots the neocon party line....heavy on the headlines but missing the DETAILS of the story.  For those of you that don't know, Williams had been at odds with NPR for a LONG time, as his appearances on FOX political review panel resulted in him voicing opinions and viewpoints that CONTRADICTED core values of NPR that Williams was a representative and headliner of.  Essentially, it's like having a member of the GOP keep showing up at Dem fundraisers and touting the Dem agenda.  After awhile, the home team is going to cut you loose.
> 
> I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled. Which means absolutely NOTHING, Fitz, as your demonstrated neocon myopia constantly deviates from reality, as I've demonstrated in our exchanges.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.
> 
> A fantastic claim by Fitz.....if only he could provide ANY historically valid documentation to support his allegation.  If Fitz only had the personal honesty to READ the link I provided regarding the Fairness Doctrine, he would know that the chronology of history does not match his questionable recollection.
> 
> But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you can see, folks....when willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots like Fitz encounter historical facts and the logic that makes the full of them, they just babble  lame insults, supposition and conjecture and right wingnut rhetoric in the hopes that no one will notice .  Check out Posts #350 & #352 to see what has sent Fitz into such a tizzy.  To date, Fitz cannot/will not answer a simple question:  If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?
Click to expand...


And who decides what is fair?

The whole idea of the government deciding what is Fair, and regulating what we hear, is completely unamerican.


Not that I would expect such a hard core lefty to understand that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Making sure all sides heard is hardly unAmerican and certainly is constitutionally conservative.


----------



## taichiliberal

Charles_Main said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  I give back what I get....and when people make negative generalizations/accusations against me just because I disagree with them, I respond in kind.  What pisses YOU off, Fitz, is that I can back up what I say with FACTS and the logic that is derived from those facts.  YOU can't.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  You can repeat that lie until doomsday, Fitz...but reality has a way of putting that BS in check.  Hell, Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs have DOCUMENTED the bias and slanted news coverage by FOX over the years.  Here, for your education:  The Most Biased Name in News They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.
> 
> Once again, Fitz parrots the neocon party line....heavy on the headlines but missing the DETAILS of the story.  For those of you that don't know, Williams had been at odds with NPR for a LONG time, as his appearances on FOX political review panel resulted in him voicing opinions and viewpoints that CONTRADICTED core values of NPR that Williams was a representative and headliner of.  Essentially, it's like having a member of the GOP keep showing up at Dem fundraisers and touting the Dem agenda.  After awhile, the home team is going to cut you loose.
> 
> I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled. Which means absolutely NOTHING, Fitz, as your demonstrated neocon myopia constantly deviates from reality, as I've demonstrated in our exchanges.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.
> 
> A fantastic claim by Fitz.....if only he could provide ANY historically valid documentation to support his allegation.  If Fitz only had the personal honesty to READ the link I provided regarding the Fairness Doctrine, he would know that the chronology of history does not match his questionable recollection.
> 
> But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, folks....when willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots like Fitz encounter historical facts and the logic that makes the full of them, they just babble  lame insults, supposition and conjecture and right wingnut rhetoric in the hopes that no one will notice .  Check out Posts #350 & #352 to see what has sent Fitz into such a tizzy.  To date, Fitz cannot/will not answer a simple question:  If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who decides what is fair?
> 
> 
> The whole idea of the government deciding what is Fair, and regulating what we hear, is completely unamerican.
> 
> Actually, the various stations had controll as to how the FD was administered.....there was NO SET TIME FRAME MANDATED IN THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE....so whether it was a half hour slot or hour slot, etc., the stations would determine the time alotted for view points contrary to their status quo, based upon their individual formats.
> 
> 
> Not that I would expect such a hard core lefty to understand that.
Click to expand...


That Charley is Main(ly) dealing from ignorance regarding the Fairness Doctrine is the basis for his viewpoints and assertions.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitz, WTF are you babbling about?  This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.).  The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.
> 
> So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  I give back what I get....and when people make negative generalizations/accusations against me just because I disagree with them, I respond in kind.  What pisses YOU off, Fitz, is that I can back up what I say with FACTS and the logic that is derived from those facts.  YOU can't.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  You can repeat that lie until doomsday, Fitz...but reality has a way of putting that BS in check.  Hell, Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs have DOCUMENTED the bias and slanted news coverage by FOX over the years.  Here, for your education:  The Most Biased Name in News They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.
> 
> Once again, Fitz parrots the neocon party line....heavy on the headlines but missing the DETAILS of the story.  For those of you that don't know, Williams had been at odds with NPR for a LONG time, as his appearances on FOX political review panel resulted in him voicing opinions and viewpoints that CONTRADICTED core values of NPR that Williams was a representative and headliner of.  Essentially, it's like having a member of the GOP keep showing up at Dem fundraisers and touting the Dem agenda.  After awhile, the home team is going to cut you loose.
> 
> I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled. Which means absolutely NOTHING, Fitz, as your demonstrated neocon myopia constantly deviates from reality, as I've demonstrated in our exchanges.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.
> 
> A fantastic claim by Fitz.....if only he could provide ANY historically valid documentation to support his allegation.  If Fitz only had the personal honesty to READ the link I provided regarding the Fairness Doctrine, he would know that the chronology of history does not match his questionable recollection.
> 
> But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you can see, folks....when willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots like Fitz encounter historical facts and the logic that makes the full of them, they just babble  lame insults, supposition and conjecture and right wingnut rhetoric in the hopes that no one will notice .  Check out Posts #350 & #352 to see what has sent Fitz into such a tizzy.  To date, Fitz cannot/will not answer a simple question:  If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?
Click to expand...

I see.  And if government decides that progressive taxation is unfair and repeals the 16% amendment and put in place a consumption tax, eliminating the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor will this be fair?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fitz's question with a question dodges the question, ineffectively though, while trying dodging the original quesiton, which is equally ineffective as a tactic.  taichiliberal has knocked Fitz off the ropes and his getting ready to knock his argument out of the ring.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> Making sure all sides heard is hardly unAmerican and certainly is constitutionally conservative.



Yes, But how do you do it. Who makes sure the people making sure it is fair, are being fair.

Hmmm?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making sure all sides heard is hardly unAmerican and certainly is constitutionally conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, But how do you do it. Who makes sure the people making sure it is fair, are being fair.
> 
> Hmmm?
Click to expand...


Designate somebody to give a rebuttal, no longer no shorter in length and germane to the promprt.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you can't be involved in nice conversations.  I give back what I get....and when people make negative generalizations/accusations against me just because I disagree with them, I respond in kind.  What pisses YOU off, Fitz, is that I can back up what I say with FACTS and the logic that is derived from those facts.  YOU can't.  You freak out over Fox News as being ultra conservative when their NEWS broadcasting is very balanced all things considered.  You can repeat that lie until doomsday, Fitz...but reality has a way of putting that BS in check.  Hell, Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs have DOCUMENTED the bias and slanted news coverage by FOX over the years.  Here, for your education:  The Most Biased Name in News They hired Juan Williams instantly after the liberal demagogue purists at NPR fired him for working for a 'right wing' organization.
> 
> Once again, Fitz parrots the neocon party line....heavy on the headlines but missing the DETAILS of the story.  For those of you that don't know, Williams had been at odds with NPR for a LONG time, as his appearances on FOX political review panel resulted in him voicing opinions and viewpoints that CONTRADICTED core values of NPR that Williams was a representative and headliner of.  Essentially, it's like having a member of the GOP keep showing up at Dem fundraisers and touting the Dem agenda.  After awhile, the home team is going to cut you loose.
> 
> I don't see REAL conservatives on ANY other channel save to be attacked by the hosts and rest of the panels assembled. Which means absolutely NOTHING, Fitz, as your demonstrated neocon myopia constantly deviates from reality, as I've demonstrated in our exchanges.  Sorry, but we conservatives remember how bad it was before the repeal of this worthless legislation.  Any yutz with a phone or typewriter could stop real ideological debate because they could complain and shut down everything that disagreed with them, so no real debate was possible.
> 
> A fantastic claim by Fitz.....if only he could provide ANY historically valid documentation to support his allegation.  If Fitz only had the personal honesty to READ the link I provided regarding the Fairness Doctrine, he would know that the chronology of history does not match his questionable recollection.
> 
> But, since you don't get this, please feel free to go back to the friendly confines of the Huffpoo and MSNBS whe you can feel more at home with your radical leftwing insanity of fake impartiality and tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, folks....when willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots like Fitz encounter historical facts and the logic that makes the full of them, they just babble  lame insults, supposition and conjecture and right wingnut rhetoric in the hopes that no one will notice .  Check out Posts #350 & #352 to see what has sent Fitz into such a tizzy.  To date, Fitz cannot/will not answer a simple question:  If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Given your demonstrated neocon myopia, I seriously doubt it.  But hope speaks eternal...let's see if Fitz actually sees the light.  And if government decides that progressive taxation is unfair and repeals the 16% amendment and put in place a consumption tax, eliminating the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor will this be fair?
Click to expand...


And as you can see folks, Fitz is like all willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots....when Fitz could NOT answer a simple question (If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?), could not offer valid documentation to support his assertions and allegations, and was given valid documentation that his assertions were wrong, Fitz merely moves the goal post by trying to put forth some clap trap hypothetical that has NOTHING to do with what the Fairness Doctrine was about.

Sorry Fitz, but your ploy won't work.....the burden of proof is on YOU, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Stay on target and answer accordingly, and maybe then I'll address your ridiculous hypothetical.


----------



## taichiliberal

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making sure all sides heard is hardly unAmerican and certainly is constitutionally conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, But how do you do it. Who makes sure the people making sure it is fair, are being fair.
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Designate somebody to give a rebuttal, no longer no shorter in length and germane to the promprt.
Click to expand...


A simple solution....but that would mean airing a contrary opinion that might contain facts that would logically prove the status quo wrong.....that's garlic to a vampire for the neocons and right wingnuts.

Thing was, the Fairness Doctrine left it up to the stations to determine counter-point air time.  So in a 12 hour broadcasting time, you had to have at least 1/2 hour of alternate viewpoint.     Shocking!


----------



## nraforlife

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine John Marshall, ...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You imagine, i will go with Reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nralife ....................
Click to expand...


has got you figured out Jakey- you are a remarkably ignorant or wilfully dishonest obamaist or maybe just stump dumb stupid.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> And as you can see folks, Fitz is like all willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots....when Fitz could NOT answer a simple question (If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?), could not offer valid documentation to support his assertions and allegations, and was given valid documentation that his assertions were wrong, Fitz merely moves the goal post by trying to put forth some clap trap hypothetical that has NOTHING to do with what the Fairness Doctrine was about.
> 
> Sorry Fitz, but your ploy won't work.....the burden of proof is on YOU, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Stay on target and answer accordingly, and maybe then I'll address your ridiculous hypothetical.





First off, typing in red doesn't give you any more credibility than it does make you a moderator.

Second of all,  the only thing you've done is run your mouth.  I don't bother to bust my hump pulling links you habitually ignore or make excuses on why they're not true all the while screaming "Victory is Mine".

So show me where it's best to continue talking to you let alone entertaining your delusions of intelligence?


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You imagine, i will go with Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nralife ....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> has got you figured out Jakey- you are a remarkably ignorant or wilfully dishonest obamaist or maybe just stump dumb stupid.
Click to expand...


Let's substitute the name"nra" and then you have it correctly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you can see folks, Fitz is like all willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots....when Fitz could NOT answer a simple question (If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?), could not offer valid documentation to support his assertions and allegations, and was given valid documentation that his assertions were wrong, Fitz merely moves the goal post by trying to put forth some clap trap hypothetical that has NOTHING to do with what the Fairness Doctrine was about.
> 
> Sorry Fitz, but your ploy won't work.....the burden of proof is on YOU, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Stay on target and answer accordingly, and maybe then I'll address your ridiculous hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <snip because of nothing worthwhile>
Click to expand...


I will let the world know when Fitz has something worthwhile to say.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you can see folks, Fitz is like all willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon parrots....when Fitz could NOT answer a simple question (If he believes that the news media has such a terrible liberal bias, then why would he be against legislation that would INSURE that conservative viewpoints have a fighting, if not equal, chance?), could not offer valid documentation to support his assertions and allegations, and was given valid documentation that his assertions were wrong, Fitz merely moves the goal post by trying to put forth some clap trap hypothetical that has NOTHING to do with what the Fairness Doctrine was about.
> 
> Sorry Fitz, but your ploy won't work.....the burden of proof is on YOU, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Stay on target and answer accordingly, and maybe then I'll address your ridiculous hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, typing in red doesn't give you any more credibility than it does make you a moderator.  It's not suppose to, you buffoon....it's to clearly separate my statements and responses from yours for the reader.
> Second of all,  the only thing you've done is run your mouth.  I don't bother to bust my hump pulling links you habitually ignore or make excuses on why they're not true all the while screaming "Victory is Mine".
> 
> You're babbling Fitz.....the chronology of the post clearly shows how you ignore what you don't like.  What you've done here is prove my point....you won't read ANY information that contradicts your assertions...and when challenged, YOU CAN'T BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY with valid, documented facts.  I can and have.
> So show me where it's best to continue talking to you let alone entertaining your delusions of intelligence?
Click to expand...


Translation: Fitz got shown up for the neocon foghorn that he is....and no matter how many times/ways he tries to lie or BS his way around that, the chronology of the post will always be his undoing.  I'm done with the Big Fitz-ing idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz

You mean you're leaving USMB?  

Marvelous.


Oh, and if you're going to stick around, please, find me lying.  I know libel is second nature to you but... prove it.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> You mean you're leaving USMB?
> 
> Marvelous.
> 
> Learn to read, you big Fitz-ing idiot......I'm done trying to have a rational discussion with you.....I said nothing about leaving USMB.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to stick around, please, find me lying.  I know libel is second nature to you but... prove it.



Post 350, 352 and 376.   In these post, folks, Fitz maintains claims and assertions that he cannot/will not back up with valid, documented facts.  Nor can Fitz supply the same to disprove what I've posted.  Nor can Fitz answer simple questions or acknowledge when he's proven wrong by documented facts and the logic derived from them. This makes Fitz a liar folks...at least to the rational adult anyway.  But all Fitz will do now is just deny, lie and repeat his silliness.  So be it...having the last word (however inane) for Fitz is more important than honestly discussion an issue.


----------



## MonsterZero

That old rag "the liberal media" has been the biggest BS mantra since Clinton got elected.
It was a fear tactic then as it is now. No one believes it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fitz still has nothing worthwhile to say; the fizzle simply cannot provide the good evidence for his points.


----------



## Whitefeather

new congress to quote constitution tuesday, new house rules radical, congressional house rule 19, it?s like the republicans think that the constitution will somehow save them from gay people, the poor, it's not the job of congress to rule on constitutionality. 

Maybe it is time for an ammendment to the constitution taking that power away from all of congress.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you're leaving USMB?
> 
> Marvelous.
> 
> Learn to read, you big Fitz-ing idiot......I'm done trying to have a rational discussion with you.....I said nothing about leaving USMB.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to stick around, please, find me lying.  I know libel is second nature to you but... prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post 350, 352 and 376.   In these post, folks, Fitz maintains claims and assertions that he cannot/will not back up with valid, documented facts.  Nor can Fitz supply the same to disprove what I've posted.  Nor can Fitz answer simple questions or acknowledge when he's proven wrong by documented facts and the logic derived from them. This makes Fitz a liar folks...at least to the rational adult anyway.  But all Fitz will do now is just deny, lie and repeat his silliness.  So be it...having the last word (however inane) for Fitz is more important than honestly discussion an issue.
Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal.

You obviously can't tell when someone's fucking with you.  Makes it all the funnier.  Pop a Midol, I think it cures bitchy, and a Haldol to cure the rest of what ails you.

Oh, And quit inserting your words in my quotes.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you're leaving USMB?
> 
> Marvelous.
> 
> Learn to read, you big Fitz-ing idiot......I'm done trying to have a rational discussion with you.....I said nothing about leaving USMB.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to stick around, please, find me lying.  I know libel is second nature to you but... prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post 350, 352 and 376.   In these post, folks, Fitz maintains claims and assertions that he cannot/will not back up with valid, documented facts.  Nor can Fitz supply the same to disprove what I've posted.  Nor can Fitz answer simple questions or acknowledge when he's proven wrong by documented facts and the logic derived from them. This makes Fitz a liar folks...at least to the rational adult anyway.  But all Fitz will do now is just deny, lie and repeat his silliness.  So be it...having the last word (however inane) for Fitz is more important than honestly discussion an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> You obviously can't tell when someone's fucking with you.  Makes it all the funnier.  Pop a Midol, I think it cures bitchy, and a Haldol to cure the rest of what ails you.
> 
> Oh, And quit inserting your words in my quotes.  I'll respond however I like, since I'm not editing your words in anyway. TFB if you don't like it, put me on IA and stop whining.
Click to expand...



The last refuge of the defeated neocon scoundrel..."it's all a joke". 

Fitz is too much of a p***y to admit when he's been proven wrong, folks.


----------



## frazzledgear

Baruch Menachem said:


> there will come a time the Republicans will find this rule bites them in the ass.
> 
> 
> Until that time, I think it is a very good idea.



If and when it does, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer about it doing so.  NO Congress should be so arrogant as to believe it has the authority to pass ANYTHING where the Constitutional authority for doing so cannot be found.  If it bites Republicans in the ass someday, it means the authority for what they wanted cannot be found in the Constitution either and should be abandoned because the authority for it exists on the state level only where it probably belonged all along or with the people!  And NOT with federal government!  

It is a terrible mistake to allow federal government to constantly erode and usurp the rights, powers and authority of we the people either directly or indirectly by taking it from state government.  *Government that is closest to the people is the most responsive to them* -and that will NEVER be federal government.  It is the nature of the beast that it constantly seeks to expand its power and authority -but it can only do so by TAKING it from another level of government or by depriving the people themselves of it by claiming new powers and authorities for itself -as we saw Pelosi and chums do insisting federal government had the "right" to ORDER all citizens to buy the private goods of their choice or face punishment!  (And in her arrogance she smirked when asked where the Constitutional authority for that existed.)  Madison wrote a warning for a future generations about what is at stake when future generations become lax and doubt that government can go bad and turn on its own people.  It can, it has, it does.  A government never turns on its own people -until it does.  But in order to do so it must first accumulate the power to do so and will only turn on its own people when their ability to stop it is significantly reduced.  In this country that can only be achieved a bit at a time and government will ALWAYS do so by first using as an excuse and under the guise of something that sounds positive and touchy-feely, playing on EMOTIONS.  All in order to grab more POWER.  Exactly what happened when Pelosi, Reid and Obama passed and signed that healthcare bill ORDERING all citizens to buy a particular good in the private market just to exist -or face government punishment.  Some people support that because they happen to LIKE what government was ordering people to buy. But that IMMEDIATELY becomes legal precedent whereby the people have already given government the authority to order everyone to spend their money the way government wants or be punished.  Supporting this bill is in essence agreeing that all your money actually belongs to government and not you and therefore government can legally tell your how to spend any part or all of it.  It is agreement that you are a government owned slave and agreeing government owns your money and has the legal authority to tell you how to spend it.)   But the next time government ORDERS you to spend your money the way it tells you or be punished, it won't be so touchy-feely and you might finally come to your senses and object to government claiming that authority at all.  But now you no longer have the power to stop it because you already GLADLY forfeited the right when you LIKED what government ordered you to buy without stopping to THINK that LIKING what you are ordered to buy just to EXIST in this country - has nothing to do with whether government EVER had the right to order people to buy anything or not in the first place!  And it does NOT!  And liking what government would order everyone to buy is IRRELEVANT to the equation here.  So it is the responsibility of a free people to keep the natural tendency of government to expand its powers in check, spotting the disguises it takes to do so and stopping it - and never placing one's trust in government to be benign or REMAIN benign!  POWER corrupts.  That is a hard and fast TRUTH and FACT.  The solution is to keep the power disseminated and dispersed in the hands of MANY (we the people) and prevent it from becoming centralized and in the hands of a few.  This is a never ending lesson that is being played out all the time somewhere on this planet and throughout man's entire history -proving over and over that GOVERNMENT is inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY and if a free people intend to remain free, it will always require their constant vigilance to keep its never-ending attempts to expand its power in check.  Or lose their freedoms and see their own descendants pay the price for it with their blood.


----------



## Big Fitz

taichiliberal said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 350, 352 and 376.   In these post, folks, Fitz maintains claims and assertions that he cannot/will not back up with valid, documented facts.  Nor can Fitz supply the same to disprove what I've posted.  Nor can Fitz answer simple questions or acknowledge when he's proven wrong by documented facts and the logic derived from them. This makes Fitz a liar folks...at least to the rational adult anyway.  But all Fitz will do now is just deny, lie and repeat his silliness.  So be it...having the last word (however inane) for Fitz is more important than honestly discussion an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> You obviously can't tell when someone's fucking with you. Makes it all the funnier. Pop a Midol, I think it cures bitchy, and a Haldol to cure the rest of what ails you.
> 
> Oh, And quit inserting your words in my quotes. I'll respond however I like, since I'm not editing your words in anyway. TFB if you don't like it, put me on IA and stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says it's a joke?
> 
> I do hope you leave.
> 
> as for being a pussy, little miss innernet tuff shit, get over your bad self.  Nobody lied, I just mocked you, as is the level of your entertainment value.
> 
> The fact you're blowing a fucking diode is hillarious.  Keep going.  You'll end up in the epic meltdown thread hall of fame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Push harder.  You'll either have a rational thought, poop yourself or have a stroke.
Click to expand...


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> You obviously can't tell when someone's fucking with you. Makes it all the funnier. Pop a Midol, I think it cures bitchy, and a Haldol to cure the rest of what ails you.
> 
> That's what every intellectually bankrupt neocon blowhard says after getting their asses kicked.....but as the chronology of the posts shows, your "mocking" is just a lame attempt to cover your ignorance.
> 
> Oh, And quit inserting your words in my quotes. I'll respond however I like, since I'm not editing your words in anyway. TFB if you don't like it, put me on IA and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last refuge of the defeated neocon scoundrel..."it's all a joke".
> 
> Fitz is too much of a p***y to admit when he's been proven wrong, folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says it's a joke?
> YOU did, you Fitzy coward, by trying to cover your inabilty to prove your point in a debate and subsequently admit you were wrong and I was right.
> 
> I do hope you leave. *"Edited No Family"*, Fitzy boy......just because you got your intellectual ass whupped by me in a fair debate, you now want me to leave. TFB...put me on IA if I disturb your little world so much.
> 
> I do hope you leave.
> 
> as for being a pussy, little miss innernet tuff shit, get over your bad self. Nobody lied, I just mocked you, as is the level of your entertainment value.
> 
> The fact you're blowing a fucking diode is hillarious. Keep going. You'll end up in the epic meltdown thread hall of fame.
> You're repeating yourself, Fitzy.....which STILL makes you a Fitz-ing liar and intellectual coward.
Click to expand...



See above, folks....Fitzy is still a p***y.


----------



## Big Fitz

All I see from you is:






You're not worth anything more.






Grow up, and you've only yourself to blame iff any consequences from repeatedly inserting text into my quotes occur.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Fitz said:


> All I see from you is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not worth anything more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, and you've only yourself to blame iff any consequences from repeatedly inserting text into my quotes occur.



Since my responses in no way, shape or form alter the content of your original posts, all you're doing is trying to find an excuse for your failure to factually and logically win your points, Fitzy boy.  And since you sic your forum connected dog on me, you might want to cover all your bases and go whine to your momma as well.

Cowards hide behind rule interpretations to make threats....seems Fitzy fits that bill.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You imagine, i will go with Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nralife ....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> has got you figured out Jakey- you are a remarkably ignorant or wilfully dishonest obamaist or maybe just stump dumb stupid.
Click to expand...


You are a silly goof from the far far far right, but you amuse me.


----------



## Charles_Main

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> nralife ....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has got you figured out Jakey- you are a remarkably ignorant or wilfully dishonest obamaist or maybe just stump dumb stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a silly goof from the far far far right, but you amuse me.
Click to expand...


I know I have said it many times now, but It is still just so amusing to me.

"Radical New Congress" LOL

Liberals or so far out of touch they think the idea of limiting Federal Power, and spending less are RADICAL ideas 

LOL LOL LOL LOL


----------



## Polk

Funniest thing about this "rule" is that the Republicans are already not following it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Charles_Main said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> has got you figured out Jakey- you are a remarkably ignorant or wilfully dishonest obamaist or maybe just stump dumb stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a silly goof from the far far far right, but you amuse me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I have said it many times now, but It is still just so amusing to me.
> 
> "Radical New Congress" LOL
> 
> Liberals or so far out of touch they think the idea of limiting Federal Power, and spending less are RADICAL ideas
> 
> LOL LOL LOL LOL
Click to expand...


The libs and most of the centrists think that way, because in the bad old days, the states did some very bad things to a lot of people, Charles.  This group of folks do not trust state governments to protect their rights.


----------

